Sociology of Crime

Chairperson—Prof Madhurima Verma
Course leader- Prof. Madhurima Verma

Coordinator – Prof. Madhurima Verma
MA IIIrd Semester Sociology
Paper O 934 SOCIOLOGY OF CRIME
i. Introductory letter
ii Syllabus
CONTENTS
L.
Topic Author Pg. No
No.
1 Deviance Dr.Suchet
2 Juvenile Delinquency Dr.Suchet
3 Crime Dr.Suchet
Classical and Positivist School of

4 Prof. Madhurima
Criminology
5 Biological theories of Crime Prof. Madhurima
6 Psychological theories of Crime Prof. Madhurima
7 Sociological theories of Crime Prof. Madhurima
Violent Crimes-Homicide, Aggravated

8 Dr.Suchet &Prof.Madhurima
Assault
9 Property crime Dr.Suchet &Prof.Madhurima
10 Crime against Moral and Political Order Prof. Madhurima
11 White collar Crimes Prof. Madhurima
12 Corporate Crimes Prof. Madhurima
13 Theories of Punishment Prof Madhurima&Dr.Navneet
14 Penology in India and Indian Penal code Dr.Mona Arora

Prof.
15 Types of punishment
Madhurima&Dr.Navneet
16 Correctional Programme –Prison based Prof Madhurima
17 New Delhi model of correction Dr Mona Arora
18 Correctional Programme- Community based Prof Madhurima&Dr.Navneet
Vetter : Prof. Madhurima Verma

Email of the department-coordsoc@pu.ac.in
Contact 0172-2534279
Introductory letter
Dear student,
Welcome to M.A. Sociology 3rd Semester. SOC O 934 Sociology of Crime is an optional paper
that familiarizes you with concepts and perspectives used to explain the criminal behaviour. You
will be will be introduced to the eruption of different forms of crime and the significant advances
made towards its control and prevention and correctional measures..
The paper on Sociology of Crime is divided into four units. Unit 1 deals with Concepts and
Perspectives of crime. Unit 2 highlights major forms of crime. Unit 3 covers Punishment in
relation to crime. Unit 4 focuses on correctional programmes.
Like previous semester theory question paper will be of 80 marks and 20 marks will be for
internal assessment. USOL students have to submit assignment of 20 marks which are already
made available to you. There will be 9 questions in all. The first question is compulsory and shall
be short answer type containing 10 short questions spread over the whole syllabus to be
answered in about 30 to 35 words each, carrying 20 marks i.e. 2 marks each . Rest of the paper
shall contain 8 questions from 4 units. Each unit shall have two long questions and the
candidates shall be given internal choice of attempting one question from each Unit-4 in all.
Each question will carry 15 marks.
Detailed syllabus is attached for your ready reference. In each lesson there are further readings,
in case you have any doubts you can reach us through email.
Best wishes,
Prof Madhurima Verma
Course leader
SOC Paper O 934 SOCIOLOGY OF CRIME
coordsoc@pu.ac.
SOC O 934: SOCIOLOGY OF CRIME
Course Outline
Unit-I
Concepts and Perspectives:
Deviance, Juvenile delinquency and Crime
Legal, Behavioral and Sociological Definitions of
Crime Classical and Positive Schools of Criminology
Biological, Psychological and Sociological Approaches (Conflict, Structural-Functional and
Symbolic-Interactionist)
Unit-II
Major Forms of Crime:
Violent Crime: Homicide and Aggravated Assault
Property Offences: Economic and Property Crimes
Public Order Offenses: Crime against Moral and Political Order
Crimes involving Abuse of Power: White Collar and Corporate Crime
Unit-III
Punishment in Relation to Crime:
Theories of Punishment: Retributive, Deterrent and Reformative
Penology in India and Indian Penal Code Types of Punishment: Capital punishment,
transportation, imprisonment, forfeiture of
property, fine, whipping
Unit-IV
Correctional Programmes:
Significance and Forms of Correctional Programmes: Prison based, Community based. Prison
based Correction: New Delhi Model of Correction.
Community based Correction: Probation, Parole, After-care and Rehabilitation.
Suggested Readings
1. Agarwal, Rajendra Saran & Sarvesh Kumar (eds.) (1986) Crimes & Punishment in New
Perspective, Delhi: Mittal Publication.
2. Ahuja, Ram (2000) Criminology, Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
3. Bhatnagar, R.R. (1990) Crimes in India: Problems and Policy, New Delhi: Ashish
Publications.
4. Crow, Iain (2001) Treatment and Rehabilitation of Offenders, London: SagePublications.
5. Lilly, J.Robert., Cullen, Francis .T and Ball, Richard A. (2007). Criminological
Theory: Context and Consequences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
6. Prasad, R.S.(2004). Cyber Crime and Introduction, ICFAI Univ, Hyderabad.
7. Sharma, Ram Nath (1993) Crime and Penology: Social Disorganization and
Social Problems, Delhi, Surjeet Publications.
8. Singh, Radhika (1999) Despotism in Law: Crime and Justice in Early Colonial India, New
Delhi, O.U.P.
9. Sutherland, Edwin H & Donald R. Cressey (1968) Principles of Criminology,

Bombay, The Times of India Press.
10. Weisburd, Dand & Kip Schlegal (1990) White-Collar Crime Reconsidered,
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Additional Readings
1. Devasia, V.V. (1993) Criminology, Victimology and Corrections, Delhi: Ashish Publications.
2. Doongaji, Damayanti (1986) Crime and Punishment in Ancient Hindu Society,

Delhi, Ajanta Publications.
3. Dutta, N.K.(1989) Origin and Development of Criminal Justice in India, New
Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications.
4. Gill, S.S. (1998) The Pathology of Corruption, New Delhi: Harper CollinsPublishers.
5. Gilsinan, James F. (1989) Criminology and Public Policy: An Introduction,
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

6. Mathur, Krishan Mohan (1996) Crime, Human Rights and National Security,
New Delhi: Gyan Publication House.
7. Meier, Robert F. (1988) Crime and Society, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.
Lesson 1
DEVIANCE
Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Nature of Deviance

1.2.1 Characteristics of Deviance
1.2.2 Difference between Crime & Deviance
1.2.3 Functions of Deviance
1.2.4 Dysfunctions of Deviance
1.3 Theorizing Deviance

1.3.1 Biological Theories
1.3.2 Psychological Theories
1.3.3 Sociological Theories
1.4 Sociological Theories

1.4.1 Anomie Theory ( Emile Durkheim)
1.4.2 Anomie Theory ( Merton)
1.4.3 Control Theory
1.4.4 Differential Association Theory
1.4.5 Labeling Theory
1.4.6 Conflict Theory
1.4.7 Sub Culture of Deviance ( Chicago School)
1.5 Summary
1.6 Glossary
1.7 Further readings
1.8 Model Question
1.0 Objectives
After going through this lesson, you will be able to:

 understand the meaning and nature of deviance
 explain the characteristics, functions and dysfunctions of deviance
 describe Biological, Psychological and Sociological theories of deviance
1.1 Introduction
Every society has its own norms and moral codes of functioning. Individuals are expected to adhere
to these norms and rules of society. Those who obey these norms and rules are rewarded but some
of them violate these norms which results in their punishment. There cannot be a society in which
all people always conform to all norms. As Young and Mack have pointed out, “No norm is always
obeyed; no individual always conforms to every set of expectations”. Thus those who violate these
norms and rules of society are called as deviants. Hence, deviance, that is, the act of going against
the rules or norms is there everywhere. Types of deviant behavior are found in every society.
Crime, violence, unruly behavior, dishonesty, immortality, betrayal, cheating, gambling,
drunkenness etc. are forms of deviant behaviour which do not conform to the societal norms.
Mahatma Gandhi violated the salt law and started the independence movement. Martin Luther king
and his colleagues violated the rules of discrimination and started the Civil Rights Movement in
America. In South Africa, the oppressed people fought against the laws of apartheid. Therefore in
sociological terms deviant behavior is neither good nor bad; it is a neutral act of non-conformity.
1.2 Nature of Deviance
The word DEVIANCE has come from the word “Deviate” which means to stray or go away from
an accepted path. Deviance consists of those activities, which do not follow the norms and
expectations of a particular society. In other words it may be defined as a behavior that is in
violation of the norms of a society or a social group. The one who breaks the social rules, norms or
laws of society is called as Deviant. Social rules can either be written (laws and rules) or unwritten
(normal ways of behaving. Committing Theft, Murder or Incest are deviant acts since they are a
violation of the norms of society in general for which the society punishes the deviant. But do all
deviant acts have a negative sanction or are punishable by society?
Definitions of Deviance
1. Horton and Hunt The term deviation is given to any failure to conform to customary norms.
2. Orville G. Brim Jr. Deviance can be defined as failure to conform to the expectations of
other persons.
3. Louise Weston Deviance can be defined as behavior that is contrary to the standards of
conduct or social expectations of a given group or society.
4. Marshall B. Clinard Those situations in which behaviour is in a disapproved direction, and

of a sufficient degree to exceed the tolerance limit of the community.
According to Clinard’s definition, crime and delinquency are the most obvious forms of
deviance. Crime refers to those activities which break the law of the land and are subject to official
punishment whereas delinquency refers to the criminal activities of young people. All criminal acts
are deviant acts but not all deviant acts are criminal acts. An act of a murder would be considered
both a deviant and criminal act because it not only breaks or harms the norms of society but
violates the law of the land. On the other hand the marrying of a girl and a boy belonging to
different caste group would be considered deviant and punishable by the members of a certain
Indian community but won’t be considered as crime as Indian Law doesn’t have any objections
towards an inter caste marriage.
Deviance may be positively sanctioned (rewarded), negatively sanctioned (punished), or

simply accepted without reward or punishment. Deviance may be POSITIVELY SANCTIONED
(rewarded) e.g. soldier giving his life in battlefield by defying the orders of his captain, scientists
breaking the rules of his discipline and develops a new theory. In both the cases soldier may be
awarded with medal and scientist with a noble prize. In one sense neither is deviant since both
confer to the values of society, soldier to the value of courage and scientist to the value of
academic progress. By comparison, a murderer not only deviates from society’s norms and
expectations but also from its values. His deviance generally results in widespread disapproval and
punishment. Here therefore the deviance is NEGATIVELY SANCTIONED (Punished). Third type
consists of acts, which depart from the norms and expectations of a particular society but are
generally tolerated and accepted. E.g. the little old lady with a houseful of cats or the old
gentleman with a obsession for collecting clocks would fall into this category. Therefore the act of
old lady or gentleman would be accepted without reward and punishment. This type of Deviance is
refereed as NEUTRAL.
1.2.1 Characteristics of Deviance
1) Deviance is Relative There is no absolute way of defining a deviant act. In a particular society
an act which is considered deviant today may be defined as normal in the future. An act defined
as deviant in one society may be seen as perfectly normal in another. Deviance is culturally
determined and cultures change over time and vary from society to society. E.g. at certain times
in Western society it has been considered deviant for women to smoke and consume alcoholic
drinks in public. Today this is no longer the case. Homosexuality was formerly a criminal
offence in Britain. Since 1969, however homosexual acts conducted between consenting adults
in private are no longer illegal. Even in India the act of Homosexuality was earlier punishable
by categorizing under ‘Sodomy’ but today it is no longer punishable by law.
2) Deviant Behaviour is different from Normal Behaviour Deviant behaviour is a social

problem as it has a disruptive effect on social life. These types of people refuse to live by the
rules followed by the majority of the group. They are violent criminals, drug addicts and they do
not fit in the social bracket accepted by the society. In practice therefore Deviance is usually
limited to those acts which results in negative sanctions.
3) Deviance is not based on Value Judgement. From the sociological perspective deviance or
crime simply refer to violation of rules. There is every possibility that rules of societies are
based on unjust or unequal laws and therefore are considered to be bad and require replacement
e.g. the caste rules in India which promoted Untouchability for centuries. Adoption of Civil
disobedience Movement by Mahatma Gandhi to fight the British Raj. Martin Luther King,
Nelson Mandela questioned the rules of their political systems. Therefore, sociologists view
crime and deviance as neutral concepts and make no moral judgments.
4) Deviance is not a matter of the cost or consequences of a particular behavior, or the

behavior itself. Deviance is a label (PROCESS) used to maintain the power, control, and
position of a dominant group.
5) Deviance is a negotiated order. Deviance violates some group’s assumptions about reality
(social order). It violates expectations. The definition of deviance defines the threat and allows
for containment and control of the threat. The definition of deviance preserves, protects, and
defines group interests and in doing so maintains a sense of normalcy.
6) Deviance is a product of Social Interaction: It means people learn to violate in interaction
with others. Through this interaction and communication, people learn the values, attitudes,
techniques, and motives for criminal behavior. Specifically, people within a particular reference
group provide norms of conformity and deviance, and thus heavily influence the way other
people look at the world, including how they react. People also learn their norms from various
socializing agents—parents, teachers, ministers, family, friends, co‐workers, and the media. In
short, people learn criminal behavior, like other behaviors, from their interactions with others,
especially in intimate groups.
1.2.2 Difference between Crime & Deviance

Crime is an act in violation of the law and the criminal is a person who does an act in violation of
the law. On the other hand deviance is an act which violates the norms of a society which may
not have serious implications as that of crime. For example committing a murder, rape or dacoity
are criminal acts which are punishable by law but acts as that of public nudity, taking alcohol by
a woman in public or doing an inter-caste marriage may be regarded as deviant acts which are
not punishable by law but are punishable by society since all these acts break the societal norms
and moral codes of that particular society. In certain areas of India inter-caste marriage is
considered a deviant act for which both the boy and girl are severely punished by their societal
members because it is considered a violation to their moral values and sentiments. But it can’t be
punished by law since India law permits a boy and a girl to go for an inter-caste marriage.
Therefore all criminal acts are punishable by law but all deviant acts are not punishable by law.
In other words all criminal activities become deviant activities but all deviant activities are not
criminal activities. A murderer, rapist, dacoit would be considered both the deviant and a
criminal.
1.2.3 Dysfunctions of Deviance
Deviance poses a danger to the stability of the social order. It may be destructive of organization,
firstly deviance undermines trust. The stability of social system is based on the expectation that
people will behave according to established norms. When there is widespread corruption and
theft of public property, people lose trust in their leaders. Secondly Deviance may undermine
organization by destroying people’s willingness to play their parts. Deviance offends peoples’
sense of justice and creates unevenness between effort and reward. ‘Idlers’, ‘fakers’, ‘Black-
marketers’, ‘gangsters’ , ‘cheats’ threaten the interests of the virtuous. Because, they take way
share in rewards without undergoing the sacrifices, sufferings, struggles and disciplines of the
virtuous. Above all, deviance is expensive; it diverts valuable resources. The amount of money
spent on prisons, the police, judicial system and security.
1.2.4 Functions of Deviance
According to Durkheim, deviance has several positive functions. Emile Durkheim highlights the
positive functions of crime and deviance in his much celebrated work The Rules of sociological
Method. According to Durkheim crime in any society is universal phenomenon. It is functional
as well as dysfunctional. It becomes dysfunctional or is harmful when ‘its rate is unusually high.
Durkheim argues that all social change in society begins with some form of deviance. For a
change to occur, yesterday what was considered deviance may become a normal act. A certain
amount of change is healthy for society, which results in bringing progress in a society. It brings
about social change and makes way for societal progress. It also unites the community in its
response. For example when collective consciousness or social morality is strong, any violation
of norms will be taken seriously by the whole community. Groups such as religious
communities, castes, and political parties sometimes develop an extraordinary sense of ‘we
feeling ‘and loyalty when deviance puts the group at a disadvantage in relation to an outside
group. The collective sentiments of the society should also be not too strong to block the
expression of people which may represent the collective sentiments of the future. For example
people like Jesus, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa regarded crime as ‘an anticipation’ of
the morality of the future’. In the same way terrorists or freedom fighters may represent a future
established order. According to Durkheim the function of punishment is not to remove crime in
society but is to maintain the collective sentiments at their necessary level of strength. A healthy
society requires both crime and punishment which are inevitable and regarded functional for
society.
A number of sociologists have also developed the positive perspective of deviance based on
Durkheim’s views. Albert Cohen sees deviance functional in form of a safety valve which is
relatively harmless. For example, Cohen suggests that ‘prostitution performs such a safety valve
function without threatening the institution of family’. A man who finds his marriage under
threat owing to lack of much needed sexual gratification from his spouse can fulfill his desire
through a prostitute which can provide a release of stress and pressure of his family life. Since
the relationship between a prostitute and her client usually avoids strong emotional attachment it
will help in keeping his family life stable. Secondly, Cohen suggests that certain deviant acts
may provide a useful warning device to indicate that an aspect of society is malfunctioning. The
growing incidences of crime against women like eve-teasing, molestation, rape in a city may
indicate the malfunctioning of society in terms of its failure to provide protection and security to
women.
Self assessment questions
1. How deviance is relative?
2. Mention two dysfunctions of deviance?
3. Differentiate between crime and deviance?

1.3 Theorizing Deviance
Biologists, Psychologists and Sociologists have propounded various theories which will explain
individual’s non ability to conform to the societal norms resulting in deviance in society.

Biological Theorists locate the cause of deviance in the biological attributes of the deviants.
They are of the view that the deviants are different from the ‘normal’ people. It was in 1876 the
Italian Criminologist, Ceasre Lombroso argued that criminals were born rather than made by the
society. Such born criminals were referred to as ‘Atavists’ by Lombroso. According to him, the
criminals or deviants had ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferiority as that of
animals. He theorized that deviants or criminals stand out physically, with low foreheads,
prominent jaws and cheekbones, protruding ears, hairy bodies, and unusually long arms. In the
middle of the twentieth century, William Sheldon took a different approach, suggesting that body
structure might predict criminality (Sheldon,Hartl, & McDermott, 1949). His study conducted
upon hundreds of young men revealed that deviance was most common among boys with
muscular, athletic builds. E.A. Hooten another criminologist went to great lengths to analyze the
height, weight, shape of the body, nose, ears, jaw ankles and foreheads of criminals and came to
conclusion that deviance or crime was the result of ‘organic inferiority’ and not a product of
social conditions.
Following the attempts to link constitution and crime, several theories of crime causation
consider a hormonal or endocrinal perspective. Endocrinal (ductless) glands such as pituitary, the
thyroid, pancreas, adrenals produce certain hormones in brain which can affect both physical and
mental process and temperament of a person. Owing to the production of abnormal hormones or
abnormal secretions in brain may give rise to criminal tendencies in a person( Hurwitz &
Christianne) . Irregularity of specific glands has tied to specific crimes, such as the pituitary and
adrenal in the crime of murder, pituitary and thyroid in crimes of robbery, deceit and theft.
Another theory called as XYY Chromosome theory argues that a chromosomal imbalance exists
in some persons due to the presence of an additional Y chromosome at birth. These “supermale”
chromosomal persons were claimed to be more aggressive as compared to other individuals.
However, current biological theorists focus on genetic factors, abnormal brainwave patterns,
hormonal abnormalities, low blood sugar levels, presence of tumors, and many other physical
and hereditary factors to determine whether certain biological factors are prone to create certain
types of deviant behavior. The theories have not given conclusive results due to their empirical
invalidity. Sociologists negate these biological theories which alone cannot explain social
behavioral problems. Bribery, corruption, sexual misconduct if seen as deviant acts, then it is
known that the deviants can be ‘perfect gentlemen’ in appearance without any biological
deformities. The first use of cigarette, alcohol, or a drug is often the result of peer pressure rather
than a biological condition.

Psychological explanations of deviance are a critique to biological factors of deviance. They see
deviance as an abnormality lying in the mind rather than the body. They emphasize the cause of
deviance not located in birth as stated by biological theorists but owing to the role of parents and
early childhood experiences or behavioral conditioning in producing deviant behavior. They
view deviant individual as a “psychologically sick” person who has experienced emotional
deprivation or damage during childhood. The British psychologist Hans Eysenck says that it is
the individuals who inherit different personality traits which make them to take the path of crime.
An extrovert personality is likely to break the law because of his excitements, taking of chances
and aggressive or impulsive behavior. It is harder to condition and socialize extroverts according
to the norms, laws and values of society in comparison to the introverts.
The most famous approach “Psychoanalytical approach” sees the commission of deviant acts by a
person due to his unconsciousness, the part which consists of irrational thought and feelings of
which one is not aware. According to Freud, our personality has three parts: the id, our irrational
drives and instincts; the superego, our conscience and guide as internalized from our parents and
other authority figures; and the ego, the balance among the impulsiveness of the id, the
restrictions and demands of the superego and requirements of society. It is this ‘Id’ which gives
us, deviant tendencies. It is through socialization process one learns to control its behavior
making such tendencies into unconscious. In this way one is able to function effectively according
to our society’s norms and values. But in some cases inadequate socialization in the early years of
a child’s life, the ego and the superego have failed to control the irrational drives and instincts of
the id, thus leading the individual to produce antisocial behavior in later years. The deviants or
criminal thus, typically suffer from the damaged egos or inadequate superegos. The theorists also
attribute flaws in personality traits as cause of deviance. Aggression and the impulse for instant
gratification are thought to be among the psychological attributes of criminals. Behavioral
theorists focus on rewards and punishments. Children learn the behaviour that brings positive
rewards and avoid patterns which generate punishments. Living in a traditional community where
good behavior is applauded is likely to adopted by one but if the child living in a crime prone
neighbourhood controlled by gangs would find that his certain types of deviant behavior like
theft, causing hurt be rewarding by his fellow gang members which are likely to adopted by the
deviant.
Psychological theories have one major demerit that these theories cannot account for the
wide variation among people with very similar personality types. Some become career criminals
but others may become social workers. The major questions posed are that ‘Do all children whose
egos have been wounded during early socialization become deviants?’ ‘ Does one always choose
to learn patterns of behaviour which are rewarding?’ Though psychological theories cannot
explain all forms of deviant behaviour they are very helpful in the realm of policy implications.
Instead of treating criminals as ‘bad’ to be reformed by punishments, psychological theories aid in
the process of therapy and rehabilitation.
. 1.3.3 Sociological Theories
Biological and psychological theories perhaps begin to explain why some individuals are more
likely than others to commit deviance, but they have less to say about the other questions posed
earlier: why rates of deviance differ within social categories and across locations, why some
behaviors are more likely than others to be considered deviant, and why some kinds of people are
more likely than others to be considered deviant and punished for deviant behavior. To answer
these questions, sociological explanations are necessary. While biological and psychological
theories suggest that deviants are different from non-deviants and are in that sense abnormal,
sociological explanations suggest that deviants are normal people who have been influenced by the
social environment to commit violate social norms.
1.4 Sociological Theories
1.4.1 Anomie Theory (Emile Durkheim)
One of the most pioneering efforts towards Sociological Theory of Deviance has been made by
Emile Durkheim in the late 19th century. It is one of the major Sociological approaches to
understand the problem of Deviance. It is called as Anomie Theory. Durkheim in his book
‘Division of Labour in Society’ in 1893 stated that deviant behavior can be understood only in
relation to the specific moral codes which are violated by the individuals in a particular society.
According to Durkheim common conscience or moral code has an extremely strong hold on the
individual in small, isolated societies which are homogenous in nature and are characterized by
simple division of labour. In other words these societies have mechanical solidarity. Such
mechanically integrated societies are organized in term of shared norms and values. All members
are equally committed to the moral code. The case of deviant behaviour is seen as violation of code
by all members of society as a personal threat. As society becomes more complex the work gets
divided into more numerous and increasingly specialized tasks. Thus division of labour becomes
more specialized and differentiated and society becomes more organically integrated. In such
society moral consensus amongst its members is weak. People are integrated more through
economic interdependence. Therefore some people lose their sense of belonging, the feeling of
participation in a meaningful social whole. Such individuals feel disoriented, frightened and alone.
Durkheim calls this situation as Anomie. Anomie is condition of normlessness, in which values and
norms have little impact and the culture no longer provides adequate guidelines for behavior.
According to Durkheim anomie was a major cause of Suicide. Robert Merton built his theory of
deviance on Durkheim’s views on ‘anomie’ and developed a general theory of Deviance in
American Society
1.4.2 Anomie or Strain Theory (Robert Merton)
The profounder of Anomie Theory of Deviance, Robert Merton in his famous essay, ‘Social
Structure and Anomie’ states that that deviance is not due to the criminal type of personalities but
from culture and structure of society itself. It says "the social and cultural structure generates
pressure for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously located in the structure. He linked
deviance theory with anomie. He argues that, when rules cease to operate a situation of normlessness
or 'anomie' is caused. In such a situation deviance is encouraged. Out of the several elements of
structure and culture of society, the two main elements namely the cultural goals and
institutionalized means were seen as the cause of deviance in society. The cultural goals refer to
those goals which are acknowledged and considered desirable in any society such as success, money,
power, prestige etc which are the common wants of most of the people. Institutionalized means are
the acceptable modes of reaching out for these goals. For example if one wants to pass an
examination ( goal) , one is supposed to study hard( means) , and not to cheat at the examination.
Merton defines anomie to a situation in which there is an apparent lack of fit between the
culture's norms about what constitutes success in life (goals) and the culture's norms about the
appropriate ways to achieve those goals (means). Merton’s typology
Merton has described FIVE situations
Merton’s theory is sociologically significant because of the emphasis it places on social factors and
Conformity Conformity, no deviance. Members adopt both means and goals sanctioned by society.
Innovation Normative means are rejected for achieving success and deviant means are accepted to achieve
goals are followed. This type of deviance is followed by people of lower strata. Robbery, theft,
forgery, cheating at the examination etc. are the cases where success-goals are sought to be
attained by illegitimate means are examples of innovation.
Ritualism Those who select this alternative are deviant because they have largely abandoned the
commonly held success goals. The pressure to adopt this alternative is greatest for members of
the lower middle class. Their occupations provide less opportunity for success than those of
other members of the middle class.
Retreatism Psychotics, vagabonds. Both goals and means are rejected because of personal inadequacy or
because of their perception of limited opportunities.
Rebellion They reject both the success goals and the institutionalized means and their replacement by
different goals and means. Those who adopt this alternative wish to create a new society.
Members of rising class rather than depressed class are in this category who organizes the
resentful and rebellious into a revolutionary group. Organizes political action, revolutionary
upheavals, Bandhs, hartals, gheraos, violent strikes, the so called people’s war of the
Naxalites, and similar rebellious actions fall in the category of rebellion.
conditions. However, his theory cannot explain the process of deviance, when and how certain people reject
either the goals or the means.
Merton’s theory became quite influential among sociologist. It is useful because it emphasizes
external causes of deviant behavior that are within the power of society to correct. The theory’s
weakness is its inability to account for the presence of certain kinds of deviance that occurs among all
social strata and within almost all social group e.g. juvenile alcoholism, drug dependence and family
violence ( spouse beating and child abuse)
1.4.3 Control Theory
The Control Theorists are concerned with the question that what causes conformity? Or what
makes people to conform towards the norms and rules of society. They are not interested in knowing the
causes of deviance. They are of view in order to know the causes of deviance first the causes of
conformity should be known. According to this theory, people are free to violate norms if they lack
intimate attachments with parents, teachers and peers. These attachments help them in establishing values
linked to a conventional lifestyle. Without these attachments and acceptance of conventional norms, the
opinions of other people do not matter and the individual is free to violate norms without fear of social
disapproval. This theory is based on assumption that disapproval of others play a major role in preventing
deviant acts and crimes.
According to Travis Hirschi (1969) One of the main proponents of control theory, all the
individuals have the potential to commit deviant acts. Most of the individual never commit these acts
because of their strong bond to society. According to Hirschi, there are Four ways in which individuals
become bonded to society and conventional behavior.
 Attachment to Others: People form intimate attachment to parents, teachers and peers who
display conventional attitudes and behaviour
 A Commitment to Conformity Individuals invest their time and energy in conventional types
of activities, such as getting education, holding a job or developing occupational skills. People
also show commitment to achievement through these activities.
 Involvement in Conventional Achievement People are so much engaged in conventional

activities that they have no time to commit or even think about deviant activities.
 A Belief in the Moral Validity of Social Rules Individuals have a strong moral belief that they
should obey the rules of conventional society. If these four elements are strongly developed, the
individual is likely to display conventional behavior. If these elements are weak, deviant
behavior is likely to take place.
Hirschi & Gottfredson (1993) Proposed a theory of crime based on one type of control i.e self-control.
They have suggested that people with high self-control will be less likely to engage in criminal acts.
Those with low self-control are more likely to commit crime than those with high self-control. The
cause of one’s love self-control is due to ineffective parenting. Parents who do not take an active interest
in their children and do not socialize them properly produce children with low self-control
1.4.4 Cultural Transmission Theory (The Ecology of Deviance- ‘the Chicago school’)
An important Sociological approach, begun in the late 1800s and early 1900s by sociologists
namely Clifford Shaw and Henry Mckay at the University of Chicago .The school later became to
be known as the ‘Chicago School’ developed an ecological approach to the study of social life.
Ecology refers to the relationship between organisms and the environment. According to Shaw and
Mckay the growth of cities produced distinct neighbourhoods each with its own characteristic style
of life. It was this perspective which was applied by Shaw and Mckay to the study of deviance. The
theory stresses that certain social and physical characteristics of urban neighborhoods raise the odds
that people growing up and living in these neighborhoods will commit deviance and crime. Many
criminogenic (crime-causing) neighborhood characteristics were identified, including delinquency,
prostitution, gambling, illegal drug use, a high consumption of alcohol, violence and broken
families, high rates of poverty, population density, dilapidated housing, residential mobility, and
single-parent households. All of these problems are thought to contribute to social disorganization,
or weakened social bonds and social institutions, that make it difficult to socialize children properly
and to monitor suspicious behavior.
Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association explained deviance or crime on the basis of a
criminal life experiences. Suppose a hungry boy comes across a shop and comes and steals a loaf of
bread in absence of the shopkeeper. In this case, it is not because the shopkeeper was absent and he
was hungry that the boy committed the theft but it is because he had learnt earlier that one can
satisfy his Hunger by stealing things. Thus, it is not the situation, which motivates a person to
commit theft; it is his learnt attitudes and beliefs. The theory states that criminal behaviour is learnt
in a process of Communication with other persons, principally in small, intimate groups. This
Learning includes the techniques of committing the crime.
The key elements of differential association theory are:
1. Criminal behavior is learnt in interaction with others
2. Criminal behavior is learnt primarily from intimate social groups of friends and colleagues
3. The learning process involves two components: learning the criminal techniques and learning the criminal
motives. The first aspect deals with the technique of committing the crime and the second with motives,
drives and attitudes which rationalize the criminal act.
4. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over
definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This is the principle of differential association. When people
become criminal, they do so not only because of contacts with criminal patterns but also because of
isolation from anti-criminal patterns. For example a teenager in a rural community surrounded by
traditional values is going to show conformity towards obeying norms or laws of society as compared to a
teenager in a crime ridden urban neighbourhood controlled by gangs and criminal groups. The one
surrounded by criminal gangs or groups will find an excess of definition in favour of violation of laws.
Negatively, this means those associations which are neutral so far as crime is concerned have little or no
effect on the genesis of criminal behavior.
1. Differential association varies in frequency, length, intensity and priority.

2. The process of learning deviant behavior in association with others is similar to the process of learning
aspects of culture in society.
According to this theory what is important in the study of deviance is the social audience, not the
individual person. Becker also maintained that what is important in crime is not the act of an individual but
the reaction of society in terms of rules and sanctions. According to Becker deviance is not a quality of the
act a person commits but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an
“offender”. The deviant is one whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour
that people so label. Howard Becker gave Labeling Theory in his book “outsiders” in 1963. According to
Becker, Deviancy is a form of Behaviour created by the way other people define and label it.
“Deviance is not a quality of the act of a person commits but rather a consequence of the application
by other of rules and sanctions to an offender”
Deviant Behaviour Is Labeled There is no such thing as a deviant act. Deviancy is simply
behaviour, which is disapproved by others and is labeled as anti-social, abnormal or criminal. It all depends
on who does it, when it was done, how it was done and in front of whom. E.g. it is perfectly normal to be
naked in the bath or shower, but if you sat down to dinner with your family with no clothes on, your parents,
brothers or sisters might be slightly surprised. Killing someone may be labeled as murder and punished
accordingly but it may equally be accepted, even celebrated as heroism, if it occurs in wartime or as an act of
self- defense. It is the reaction of authority who have the power to define and label behaviour as acceptable or
deviant- the judge and the policeman, the doctor and the teacher, the government and media in context of their
relationship with those subject to them as citizens or patients, children or readers.
Stages by Which Person Is Transformed From Being Seen As Normal To Deviant

Public Labeling: Here the person is officially labeled as deviant or criminal through public ceremony
or by government agencies. For example, Delinquent, who ends up in court and is sent to prison is a
criminal; the drunk who is diagnosed by a doctor or psychiatrist is an alcoholic.
Master Labeling; One such official labels are applied, they become the master label and override all
the other symbols and statuses held by a person previously held as father, friend or employer. The
people’s reaction now takes in the form of rejection, isolation and castigation. For example, The
alcoholic who is rejected by his family and ends up homeless, the ex-convict who is unable to get a job
or buy a house.
Totally Deviant: Such right affects the individual’s even perception of themselves and their own self-
image. With the consequence they become deviant and adopt a deviant lifestyle or even a deviant
‘career’ – the juvenile delinquent who becomes a professional criminal, the drug-user who becomes a
junkie and a drug addict. Such individuals often withdraw from ‘normal’ society and go to live in
alternative lifestyles or go underground, seeking support and status among fellow deviants living in
deviant sub-cultures.
Labeling Is Not An Inevitable Process: Some criminals do go straight, some addicts do kick the
habit- but according to Becker it takes very strong personality to resist and overcome the labeling
process-the public pressure and the social rejection-once it is underway, particularly when you are in
prison or in an asylum living among criminals or the insane.
Primary & Secondary Deviance

The labeling theory propounded by Howard Becker was later developed and applied to sociological
research and practice. Edwen Lemert, for example has made the key distinction between primary and
secondary deviance. Primary deviance refers to the initial act of rule breaking. Secondary Deviance
refers to the process whereby after an act of Primary Deviance an individual adopts a DEVIANT
IDENTITY. Here the deviance is concerned about the effect of societal reaction on an individual’s
personal self-concept and status after being labeled. In Lemert’s view most people at some time or
another commit deviant act but only few are caught and publically labeled, so much primary deviance
has little effect on their self image or daily life. The cause of deviance is public labeling and its effect
on the individual (secondary deviance).
Labeling Theory has been criticized on various grounds. The theory fails to explain the ‘origins’ of
deviance; what motivates certain individuals to break society’s norms and laws when the majority of
society conform and obey the law without question. Secondly, It seems to be more deterministic, to
put all the blame for crime and deviance on the labelers and to portray deviants as innocent victims.
Those who take drugs or steal are fully aware that they are breaking the law and are often quite proud
of their defiance, yet labeling theory tends to portray deviants as passive, as unaware of the deviant
nature of their acts until arrested. Thirdly It does not fully explain ‘ societal reaction’ – why the police,
teachers, etc. react in the way that they do, where they get their attitudes and stereotypes from, why
they label some individuals and not others. More important, it does not explain who makes the rules
that define deviance. Labeling studies tend to concentrate on the ‘underdog’, on the hippies,
delinquents and homosexuals who are labeled rather than on those who enforce the laws on labels and
in particular those who make them – politicians, top businessmen, media magnates, etc. therefore the
theory fails to extend such an insight into detailed analysis of the social system at large.
1.4.6 Conflict Theory
Marxist theory in light of several conflict perspectives attributes deviant behavior to unequal
distribution of resources in modern society. Wealth and Power are concentrated in the hands of a few
individuals. Economic dominants make laws in order to protect their own interests. They use their
wealth and influence to manipulate the legal system. In every society, there are the rich and the poor,
the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. The rich and the powerful are in a position to bribe the politicians,
police and even judges and get away with the clutches of law. The poor, on the other, find that they
have no access to resources and opportunities and sometimes resort to deviant behavior. Landless
peasants revolting against landlords or those who are oppressed and suppressed for generation by the
affluent and the powerful, rebel against their oppressor. Many revolutions and social movements are
often analysed in terms of conflict perspectives. Violent upheavals by the Naxalites, anti-
untouchability movements and direct action by tribals are some of the examples. Sociologists do not
make value judgments. They see deviance wherever rules are broken.
1.4.7 Deviant Subcultures
Some sociologists stress that poverty and other community conditions give rise to certain
subcultures through which adolescents acquire values that promote deviant behavior. One of the first to
make this point was Albert K. Cohen (1955), whose status frustration theory says that lower-class boys
do poorly in school because schools emphasize middle-class values. School failure reduces their status
and self-esteem, which the boys try to counter by joining juvenile gangs. In these groups, a different
value system prevails, and boys can regain status and self-esteem by engaging in delinquency. Another
sociologist, Walter Miller (1958) said poor boys become delinquent because they live amid a lower-
class subculture that includes several focal concerns, or values, that help lead to delinquency. These
focal concerns include a taste for trouble, toughness, cleverness, and excitement. If boys grow up in a
subculture with these values, they are more likely to break the law. Their deviance is a result of their
socialization. A very popular subcultural explanation is the so-called subculture of violence thesis, first
advanced by Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti (1969) in some inner-city areas, they said, a
subculture of violence promotes a violent response to insults and other problems, which people in
middle-class areas would probably ignore. The subculture of violence, they continued, arises partly
from the need of lower-class males to “prove” their masculinity in view of their economic failure.
 Define‘Anomie’.
 Differentiate between Primary and Secondary Deviance.
1.5 Summary
The moral code of a society’s culture is based upon its norms and values. This system of moral code
views a particular behavior as right or wrong, good or bad within that culture. Thus, normal behavior is
behavior that conforms to the norms of the group in which it occurs. Deviant behavior is behavior that
fails to conform to the group’s norms.
Criminal and deviant behavior has been found throughout history. To account for this, scholars have
proposed a variety of theories. Biological theories such as those propounded by Lombroso and Sheldon
stressed the importance of inherited factors in producing deviance. Psychological explanations
emphasize cognitive or emotional factors within the individual as the cause of deviance.
Psychoanalytical theory suggests that criminals act on irrational impulses of id because they failed to
develop a proper super ego or conscience, in the socialization process. Behaviorists argue that crime is
the product of conditioning. Sociological theories of deviance rely on patterns of social interaction and
the relationship of the individual to the group as explanations. Durkheim argued that, in modern highly
differentiated and specialized societies, and particularly under conditions of rapid social change,
individuals could become morally disoriented. This condition, which he called anomie, can produce
deviance.
Control theorists like Hirschi have argued that everyone is potential deviant. They are not concerned
with the cause of deviance but with the causes of conformity. When individuals have strong bonds to
society, their behavior will conform to conventional norms. When any of those bonds is weakened,
however, deviance is likely. Other Sociologists, like Sykes and Matza, have argued that people become
deviant as a result of developing techniques of neutralization or rationalizations that make it possible to
justify illegal or deviant behavior. Their view is that these techniques are learned as part of the
socialization process. Cultural transmission theory, pioneered by Shaw and Mckay, emphasizes the
cultural context in which deviant behavior patterns are learned. Sutherland suggested that individuals
learn criminal association- that is, that individuals learn criminal techniques and attitudes through
intimate contact with deviants. Labeling theory shifts the focus of attention from the deviant individual
to the social process by which a person comes to be labeled as deviant and the consequences of such
labeling for the individual.
1.6 Glossary
Deviance: a behavior that is in violation of the norms of a society or a social group.
Atavists: Humans possessed with ferocious criminal traits as that of apes.
Anomie: A state of normlessness, in which values and norms have little impact and the culture no longer
provides adequate guidelines of behaviour.
Differential Association Theory: The idea that individuals learn criminal techniques and
attitudes through intimate contact with deviants
Delinquency : Criminal activities of young people
Conflict Approach: Argues that the elite use their power to enact and enforce laws that support
their own economic interests by exclusion of the interests of others.
Primary Deviance: The original behavior that leads to the application of a label to an
individual.
Secondary Deviance: Behaviour that people develop as a result of having been labeled as
deviant.
Ritualism: Individuals who reject or de-emphasize the importance of success and instead
concentrate on following and enforcing rules more precisely than was ever intended.
Retreatism: People who pull back from society and have ceased to pursue culturally legitimate
goals.
1.7 Further Readings
Haralambos . M.& RM Heald ( 2002). Sociology Themes and Perspectives. pp 406 – 451,London,
Collins, Educational.
Thio, Alex; Thomas C. Calhoun; Addrain Conyers (2010 )Readings in Deviant Behavior (6th
Edition) New York:Pearson.
1.8 Model question
Define Deviance. Explain its causes and different theories.

Lesson 2
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Theories of Juvenile Delinquency

2.3 Causes of Juvenile Delinquency
2.4 Extent of Juvenile Delinquency in India
2.5 Remedies of Juvenile Delinquency

2.5.1 Preventive measures
2.5.2 Rehabilitative measures
2.6 Summary
2.7 Glossary
2.8 References
2.10 Model Question
2.0 Objectives
 understand the meaning and nature of juvenile delinquency
 explain theories of juvenile delinquency
 discuss the various causes of juvenile delinquency
 explain the magnitude and extent of the problem juvenile delinquency in India
 know the preventive and rehabilitative measures to combat the problem of juvenile
delinquency
2.1 Introduction
Crime is inevitable and normal aspect of social life; it is ‘an integral part of all healthy societies’.
Durkheim in his famous treatise ‘Rules of Sociological Method’ explains the reason for the
universal presence of crime in every society. It is due to the fact that because every member of
the society can’t be equally committed to the ‘collective sentiments’, the shared values and moral
beliefs of society. Since individuals are exposed to different influences and circumstances it is
‘impossible for all to be alike’. Therefore not everybody shares the same restraints about
breaking the law.
The situation in every society becomes grime when crime is being committed by children
ranging from the grievous involvement in gambling, pick pocketing, gambling, stealing , riots to
as grave as murder, rape and even terrorism.
To criminologists, juvenile delinquency encompasses all public wrongs committed by young
people between the ages of 12 and 20. Sociologists view the concept more broadly, believing
that it covers a multitude of different violations of legal and social norms, from minor offences to
serious crimes, committed by juveniles. Included under the umbrella of juvenile delinquency are
status offences, so called because they are closely connected with the age status of an offender; a
particular action or behaviour is considered a violation of the law only if it is committed by a
juvenile (examples include truancy and running away). In an attempt to explain the theoretical
underpinnings of delinquency, sociologists associate the specifics of youth behaviour with the
home, family, neighbourhood, peers and many other variables that together or separately
influence the formation of young people’s social environment. Antisocial behaviour may be a
normal part of growing up or the beginning of a long-term pattern of criminal activity. The
United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines)
assert that “youthful behaviour or conduct that does not conform to overall social norms and
values is often part of the maturation and growth process and tends to disappear spontaneously in
most individuals with the transition to adulthood”; a great majority of young people commit
some kind of petty offence at some point during their adolescence without this turning into a
criminal career in the long term.
Under the Indian Law of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act passed in year 2000 the act of
commission of the crime committed by children who are below the age of 18 years are called as
Juvenile Delinquents. “Juvenile” means a young child whereas delinquency refers to the
breaking the rules or regulations of society. The term ‘delinquency’ has been derived from the
Latin infinitive stem’de’(away from) and ‘linquere (to leave). It was apparently used in Roman
literature to refer to the failure of an individual to perform a task or duty. The first official use of
the term ‘delinquency’ was made in 1825 when the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism in
New York City changed its name to the Society for Reformation of Juvenile Delinquency. The
famous Greek philosopher Socrates identified the symptoms of juvenile delinquency in the
following manner:
“Children now love luxury, they have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect
for elders and love chatters in place of exercise. Children no longer rise when elders enter the
room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobies up dainties at the table, cross
their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers”
Defining Juvenile Delinquency
Several social scientists have defined Juvenile Delinquency. Among them some have focused on
broader sense so as to incorporate all forms of deviance in the behaviour of juvenile as
delinquency while others have focused only on that behaviour which amounts a criminal offence.
“ It pertains of such acts of conduct that are forbidden for minors such as truancy,
incorrigibility, association with immoral persons, running away from home, promiscuity,
drinking and drug addiction”.(Walter Reckless). The juvenile delinquency does not strictly mean
criminal behaviour in children. The term includes every conceivable misbehavior, deviation or
indiscipline of children which, if not cured, is likely to result into their becoming hardened
criminals. Cyril Burt defines delinquency as occurring in a child “When his ant-social tendencies
appear so grave that he becomes or ought to become the subject of official action”. Juvenile
Delinquency on other hand rather being viewed as an anti-social or criminal behaviour is also
viewed as a normal conduct. Juvenile Delinquency is the manifestation of desires and urges that
remain unsatisfied in the normal way. For others it signifies misconduct but for the delinquent it
is a normal response to inner desires and outer stimuli. In an etiological sense, delinquency is
perfectly normal behaviour. A child’s behaviour is regarded as deviant in an overall statistical
comparison of children’s conduct but not in the developmental history of the individual
delinquent child. On the contrary, it is a natural and inevitable consequence of all the elements
that have entered into his growth. The behavioral difference between a delinquent and a non-
delinquent or law abiding and law violator is due to the product of influences of his social
environment and specific conditioning.
Thus, the act of delinquency has been largely defined as a behaviour by a juvenile that is
socially undesired, unrecognized , antisocial or criminal which is beyond parental control and
subjected to legal action Secondly it is a violation of the law committed by a juvenile and not
punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty, and pertains to that juvenile who is not
fully developed; not yet adult and comes under the category of youth or children.
In modern times a child is said to be a delinquent when he skips school, makes
anonymous and annoying phone calls, indulges in gambling, stays away from home late in the
nights, indulges in drinking/use peddling of drugs, damages the houses and other property of
citizens for fun, steals vehicles for pleasure driving, commits shop lifting, participates in gang
fights, trespassing, stealing, smoking, homosexuality, extortion and last but not the least defies
parental authority.
Hirsh (1937) has classified juveniles in 6 groups on the basis of kinds of offences committed:
1. Incorrigibility ( Keeping late hours, disobedience)

2. Truancy ( Staying away from school)
3. Larceny ( Petty theft to armed robbery)
4. Arson ( Destruction of public property, public and private)

5. Violence ( Against individual or whole community)
6. Sex offences ( Homosexuality to rape)
2.2 Theories of Juvenile Delinquency
There are many different theories that have contributed towards the understanding of juvenile
delinquency. These theories fall under three categories: Biological, Psychological, and
Sociological theories.

Biological theories revolve around the idea that individuals are predisposed (make a person to
behave in a particular way) to commit crime. Cesare Lombroso is considered to have contributed
the major theory called Positivism (Champion, 2004). His idea stated that individuals who
commit crimes had inherited certain biochemical and genetic factors. Furthermore, he states that
criminals tend to have certain physical features that are considered a predisposition to commit
crimes, such as sloping foreheads or large earlobes .Another criminalist, Sheldon, stated that
different body types made individuals behave differently. For example, he believed that
mesomorphs were more likely to commit crimes because they were athletic, as opposed to the
physic of an endomorph, a fat person Another biological theory that has come into play would be
the XYY theory. This theory uses the idea in which genetic abnormalities within the
chromosomes can lead to violent and criminal behavior .It has been determined when individuals
have this abnormality, criminal activity and aggressiveness has been present. It is due to the
presence of extra chromosome x or y in male and female which accounts for an aggressive
violent behavior. This type of abnormality is typically rare and cannot be sufficient when
predicting criminal behavior. (Champion,2004).

Psychological Theories explain delinquency to cognitive (connected with thinking) and
personality disorders brought on by one’s environment. There are two major types of
psychological theories: psychoanalytic theory and the social learning theory. The psychoanalytic
theory is based on Freud's components: id, ego, and superego (Champion, 2004). The id is the
drive for immediate gratification and can explain delinquency acts such as shoplifting or
burglary. The psychoanalytical approach states that traumatic experiences during early childhood
such as death of parents, parental separation, and deprivation of maternal love can prevent the
ego and superego from developing properly the personality of a child. Thus from the
psychological point of view “Delinquency is a rebellion and expression of aggression which is
aimed at destroying, breaking down or changing the environment”. This rebellion is mostly
against the social conditions which deny the individual his basic rights and the satisfaction of his
fundamental needs. Thus, delinquents are not born so, but they become so due to social
circumstances and personal deficiencies. They are mostly maladjusted person. Thus
psychoanalytical view states that delinquent is an individual who is governed by the “pleasure
principle”. He wants to get immediate pleasure and immediate satisfaction for his needs. So he
becomes a victim to his own impulses. He is neither able to control his impulses nor able to
imagine to think the consequences of his actions. It is also said that delinquent breakdown is an
escape from emotional situation for some particular individuals with peculiar individual and
family background. Some emotionally maladjusted children become delinquents to get the
attention of their parents or as a protest against their treatment.
The social learning theory is based upon how an individual conforms and accepts the rules, laws,
and mores of society. When there are positive role models within the home and community, the
individual is able to learn positive ways of achieving goals. When there is violence in the home,
the individual learns that violence is the only available way of coping with frustrations. This
means that the more positive the environment a child is placed in, the more likely s/he is able to
conform to society and become a no delinquent (Champion, 2004).

Over the past decades the Sociological researches on juvenile delinquency have led to the
development of some theoretical perspective promoting understanding of the phenomenon of
deviance. The tendency behind these theoretical perspectives has been to set up each major
theoretical evaluation against the others. Out of the major perspectives on delinquency there have
been three major perspectives flowing from wider aspect of deviant behaviour. These competing
perspectives have been categorized here as the anomie theory, the differential association theory
and the control theory.
Anomic theory was first thematically developed by Robert Merton in 1938. Merton’s basic
formulation is that modern urban-industrial societies emphasize material achievement in the
form of acquisition of wealth and education which are accepted status goals of the culture. At the
same time the society provides limited institution means or norms to achieve these goods by
legitimate means. Merton has maintained that unlawful behaviour such as crime and delinquency
appear when the individual has internalized fully the cultural goals of success but does not find
in inaccessible to him the institutionalized means of obtaining them.
In 1955 Albert Cohen formulated his theory of juvenile delinquency, in a way, is an
extension of Merton’s thesis. In fact Cohen’s anomie theory is fundamentally the same as
Merton’s with the difference that he replaces Merton’s word success with status. According to
Cohen the field of operation of achieving status for the children, which is primarily school, has
middle class milieu. The children from lower class are at a disadvantage of not having the
exposure of the middle class socialization process. “In brief, they are caught up in a game in
which others are typically the winners and they are the lowers and also-rane”. Cohen calls this
phenomenon, which is psychologically frustrating, as’ status frustration. It drives lower class
boys back to their lower class neighbourhood role and setup their own competitive system.
Cohen refers to this as ‘delinquent sub culture’.
Later in 1960 Richard Cloward and Ohlin gave differential illegitimate opportunity theory.
Cloward and Ohlin in their theory emphasized that while low class people lacked the opportunity
to engage in legitimate means, they do not have the same opportunity for participating in
illegitimate deviant activities. Like Cohen, they suggest that the delinquent activities are group
adjustments, which delinquents perpetuate in a deviant sub-culture. Thus, the theories flowing
from this orientation trace the source of crime and delinquency in the social structure of the
society. The frustrated, deprived or strained individual violates society’s rule to obtain the goals
or the commodities that society has convinced him or her are important to obtain. In modern
context the thrust has been more on specific middle-range theories dealing with sub-groups of
juvenile offenders and which attempt to outline the influences of social organization in greater
detail.
The Theory of Differential Association has been widely used as a frame work of reference to
explain Juvenile Delinquency and criminal behaviour these days. The fundamental premise of
this orientation as advocated by Edwin H.Sutherland is that the criminal behaviour is developed
by normal social processes common to all learning. In other words according to Sutherland,
crime is learned from friends and associates and is often influenced by the areas in which one
live. An individual is likely to get in criminal activities if he or she belongs to a group with
criminalistics traditions. Major difficulty with this theory is that it does not take into
consideration the carrier of delinquent pattern and has not classified as to who internalizes and
who does not internalize delinquent behaviour.
Control theory departs from the previous theories in two ways. Firstly, it rests on the premise
that if one can find out what causes conformity, one can automatically find out what causes
deviance. Secondly, it accepts the Freudian idea that deviant behaviour is an innate or impulsive
behaviour if not effectively checked and controlled. Advocates of the control theory believe that
as social control causes conformity, the absence of social control leads to deviance. The control
theory is supported by Walter Reckless, Ivan Rye and Travis Hirschi. Reckless calls his theory as
containment theory. He assumes that there are some socio-psychological forces that push a
person to deviant behaviour. He derives his ideas from Sociology and Psychology. The
Sociological forces are outer forces while Psychological are inner ones. His first premise is that
some people get trapped in these inner and outer forces which lead to violation of social norms.
His second premise is that there are certain outer and inner forces that protect and insulate a
person against deviance. Since Deviance generating forces are contained it is known as inner and
outer containment. The inner containment consists of qualities such as self-control, good self-
image, further tolerance, strong super ego etc. The outer containment of a person’s immediate
environment consists of effective supervision and discipline, consistent moral codes, norms and
expectations etc. If both containments are strong he will have a confirming behaviour, but if they
are weak then he will exhibit deviant behaviour.
Ivan Rye and Travis Hirschi support deviant behaviour in context to Sigmund Freud’s
Psychology. As Humans are born with animal instinct so being deviant is natural. However if the
social control and bondage with society are strong then such deviant instincts are stopped or
checked at once resulting in conformity but in case they are weak the greater are the drift
towards deviance. Unlike Nye, Hirschi looks at the relationship of an individual and society from
society’s point of view. Hirschi gives four ways in which an individual bonds himself to
society:viz
1.Attachment to others
2.Commitment to conformity
3.Involvement in conventional activities and
4) Belief in the moral validity of social rules.
All the control theories suggest that containment, social control or bond to society prevents from
committing deviant acts.
There are other forms of Sociological Theory, these have proven to be the most convincing. The
strain theory states that when an individual has goals but is unable to achieve the goals set before
them in a legitimate way, the individual will find illegitimate ways of achieving his/her goals
(TTU, 2005). There are five modes of adaptation that people may show
1. Conformity - person accepts the goals and means to achieve the goals set by society.
2. Innovation - individual accepts the goal but uses illegitimate means to achieve goal.
3. Ritualism - individual that rejects goals but will work towards lower standard goals that
have been approved
4. Retreats- person who rejects both the goals and the means.
5. Rebellion - person who, in a sense, creates his/her own society

The labeling theory focuses on defining an individual as a criminal or non-criminal. When a
person is labeled a criminal by the justice system, that person begins to believe that s/he really is
a criminal and identifies her/him with that identity. Another driving factor of the labeling theory
is that individuals will look for the types of reactions that their behavior receives from others.
Once an individual has been labeled, s/he becomes a social outcast and begins to rebel, in order
to live up to his/her identifying label.
The social bond theory, also known as social control theory, was devised by Travis Hirschi in
the 1960s. There are several different bonds that an individual must make that will determine
whether or not s/he will commit criminal offenses. The first one is an attachment, meaning that
the socialization of an individual depends on an individual's interest in another human being).
The second one is a commitment, meaning that a lack of commitment towards mores and social
laws can lead to delinquent behavior. The third bond that must be made is involvement. Hirschi
believed that an individual who participated in positive activities would not have the time to
commit criminal acts .The fourth and final bond that must be made is belief. When a person does
not live in an area that holds the same values or when s/he believes the law is unfair, one tends to
rebel and commit criminal acts .There is not one set answer for why juveniles commit crime.
Therefore all these approaches can’t be said ideal for understanding the cause of delinquency.
Self-assessment question
1. Define juvenile delinquency?
2. Who gave Control theory of juvenile delinquency?
2.3 Causes of Juvenile Delinquency
In a modern society juvenile delinquency is influenced by a number of factors. Among these are
family, socio-economic class, and educational experiences.
Economic and Social Factors

Juvenile delinquency is driven by the negative consequences of social and economic
development, in particular economic crises, political instability, and the weakening of major
institutions (including the State, systems of public education and public assistance, and the
family). Socio-economic instability is often linked to persistent unemployment and low incomes
among the young, which can increase the likelihood of their involvement in criminal activity.
Cultural factors
Delinquent behaviour often occurs in social settings in which the norms for acceptable behaviour
have broken down. Under such circumstances many of the common rules that deter people from
committing socially unacceptable acts may lose their relevance for some members of society.
They respond to the traumatizing and destructive changes in the social reality by engaging in
rebellious, deviant or even criminal activities. An example of such a setting would be the
modernization of traditional societies and the accompanying changes wrought by the application
of new technologies; shifts of this magnitude affect the types and organization of labour activity,
social characteristics, lifestyles and living arrangements, and these changes, in turn, affect
authority structures, forms of obedience, and modes of political participation— even going so far
as to influence perceptions of reality. The contradiction between idealized and socially approved
goals and the sometimes limited real-life opportunities to achieve them legally creates a sense of
frustration in many young people. A criminal career becomes one form of addressing this
contradiction. One of the reasons for delinquent behaviour is therefore an excessive focus on
proposed goals (achieving success) coupled with insufficient means to achieve them.
The likelihood of deviant acts occurring in this context depends in many respects not only on the
unavailability of legal opportunities but also on the level of access to illegal opportunities. Some
juveniles, cognizant of the limitations imposed by legal behaviour, come under the influence of
adult criminals. Many young people retreat into the confines of their own groups and resort to
drug use for psychological or emotional escape. The use of alcohol and illegal drugs by juveniles
is one cause of delinquency, as they are often compelled to commit crimes (usually theft) to
obtain the cash needed to support their substance use.
Family: Family background is one of the most important influences on juvenile development.
Norms, values, models of behavior come from the family which creates an internalized blueprint
on Childs personality, beliefs and attitudes. It is within the family unit that children receive most
of their information about how to interact with other people and society. Healthy and nurturing
families instruct members on how to interact using functional norms of behavior, whereas
unhealthy family environment instruct members on how to interact using dysfunctional norms.
The children spend most of their time with their parents and relatives within the family. Lack of
parental control over children due to death, divorce or desertion, ignorance provides ground for
children to resort to criminal acts.
The family as a social institution is currently undergoing substantial changes; its form is
diversifying with, for example, the increase in one-parent families and non-marital unions. The
absence of fathers in many low-income families can lead boys to seek patterns of masculinity in
delinquent groups of peers. These groups in many respects substitute for the family, define male
roles, and contribute to the acquisition of such attributes as cruelty, strength, excitability and
anxiety.
Statistics by researchers and criminologists indicate that delinquency is also common among
middle class youths. Reasons for middle class delinquency include parental pressure, peer
pressure, uncertainty for the future, experimentation with intoxicating substances, experimenting
with alternative lifestyles, and strong youth subcultures. Theorists identify certain dysfunctional
norms among very poor urban subcultures. Research on the inner-city underclass has found that
large numbers of the urban poor are caught in a chronic generational cycle of poverty, low
educational achievement, teenage parenthood, and unemployment and welfare dependence.
Adolescents from low-income families often feel excluded. To raise their self-esteem and
improve their status they may choose to join a juvenile delinquent group. These groups provide
equal opportunities to everyone, favourably distinguishing themselves from school and family,
where positions of authority are occupied by adults. When young people are exposed to the
influence of adult offenders they have the opportunity to study delinquent behaviour, and the
possibility of their engaging in adult crime becomes more real. The “criminalization” of the
family also has an impact on the choice of delinquent trajectories. A study carried out in prisons
in the United States reveals that families involved in criminal activities tend to push their
younger members towards violating the law. More than two-thirds of those interviewed had
relatives who were incarcerated; for 25 per cent it was a father and for another 25 percent a
brother or sister.
Poverty. A large proportion of delinquent children come from poor homes. Poverty compels
sometimes both of the parents to be outside the home for a very long period to earn their daily
bread. The uncared or neglect children therefore may consciously or consciously join hands with
gangsters and become delinquents. This phenomenon is mostly pertained to slum areas and areas
in which mostly working class people live. In Africa, delinquency tends to be attributed
primarily to hunger, poverty, malnutrition and unemployment, which are linked to the
marginalization of juveniles in the already severely disadvantaged segments of society.
Delinquency Areas. Studies on juvenile delinquency reveal that in cities some areas are highly
vulnerable to frequent delinquent activities like gang wars, auto thefts, stealing . The delinquents
mostly come from the areas of poor housing, overcrowding and the areas in which cinema
houses, hotels, night clubs, liquor shops are found in large number. Some countries are facing
great difficulty because they are located near or within the “Golden Crescent” or the “Golden
Triangle”, two major narcotics-producing areas of Asia. Traffickers actively involve adolescents
and youth in serving this industry, and many of them become addicted to drugs because of their
low prices and easy availability
Bad Peer Group & Gangs. A child is likely to become a delinquent if he socializes with the
group or the gang that fosters delinquency attitudes. As stated by Charles Shaw “delinquency is
a product of community forces”. In cities, in slum areas peculiar social groups called ‘gangs’ are
found. Generally the gang starts as a playgroup. In the absence of playgroup facilities, the
children will start playing in streets and finally organize themselves into gangs. The gangs are
found to be associated with crime in all aspects like delinquency, rioting, corrupt politics and so
on. Children coming from poor families and broken families easily become the victims of gangs.
A number of studies have shown that juvenile gang members consider their group a family. For
adolescents constantly facing violence, belonging to a gang can provide protection within the
neighbourhood. In some areas those who are not involved in gangs continually face the threat of
assault, oppression, harassment or extortion on the street or at school. As one juvenile from the
Russian Federation said, “I became involved in a gang when I was in the eighth form [about 13
years old], but I joined it only when I was in the tenth [at 15 years of age]. I had a girlfriend and I
feared for her, and the gang was able to provide for her safety.”11
Educational Experiences: Educational experiences are, in many ways, a influence on juvenile

development, along with family and socioeconomic factors, because school environments can
shape many youths sense of opportunity and self-worth. E.g. school dropouts and poor academic
performers exhibit a higher incidence of delinquency and crime than graduates and academic
achievers.
Academic achievement today is considered to be one of the principal stepping stones toward
success in Indian Society. In an ideal environment, opportunities for education, mentoring and
encouragement to excel should be equally available for all children. Unfortunately, educational
opportunities are not equally available to all youths for a number of reasons. Socio- economic
and demographic factors can also have an impact on educational opportunities and performance,
so that poor children often experience a very different educational environment in comparison to
middle class children. This is particularly apparent in inner-city, underclass environment; where
educational achievement is frequent not a strong norm of behavior. For example, norms of
behavior on school grounds can be problematic depending on whether socially accepted values
are instilled for academic competition, deportment and study habits.
Cinema, Television & Pornographic Literature In today’s modern society cinema, satellite
television and Internet have become inseparable from our lives. Though they act as a major
means of accessing information, getting Knowledge and great entertainment source but on the
darker side they are providing heavy doses of violence, vulgarity and sex. The child who has an
easy access in seeing these acts of violence and sex either on cable television or internet are often
provoked to imitate such acts in their real life. They may results in their taking delinquent path
by committing acts of violence and loose immoral sexual practices watched on television or
cinema .
Urbanisation Geographical analysis suggests that countries with more urbanized populations
have higher registered crime rates in comparison to those with strong rural lifestyles and
communities. This is due to the differences in social control and social cohesion. Rural groupings
rely mainly on family and community control as a means of dealing with antisocial behaviour
and therefore report lower crime rates. Urban industrialized societies tend to resort to formal
legal and judicial measures, an impersonal approach that appears to be linked to higher crime
rates.
The ongoing process of urbanization in developing countries is contributing to juvenile
involvement in criminal behaviour. The basic features of the urban environment foster the
development of new forms of social behaviour deriving mainly from the weakening of primary
social relations and control, increasing reliance on the media at the expense of informal
communication, and the tendency towards anonymity. These patterns are generated by the higher
population density, degree of heterogeneity, and numbers of people found in urban contexts.
Migration Because immigrants often exist in the margins of society and the economy and have
little chance of success in the framework of the existing legal order, they often seek comfort in
their own environment and culture. Differences in norms and values and the varying degrees of
acceptability of some acts in different ethnic subcultures result in cultural conflicts, which are
one of the main sources of criminal behaviour. Native urban populations tend to perceive
immigrants as obvious deviants.
2.4 Extent of Juvenile Delinquency in India

Till the year 2000 the figures for Juvenile delinquency were collected as per the definition of
Juveniles in the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Male below the age of 16 years and female below the
age of 18 years were considered as juveniles in this Act. The act was amended in 2000 according
to which, the age of Juvenile males and females was brought at par as below the age of 18 years.
A total of 32,235 cases have been registered against Juveniles during 2019, depicting a small increase
of 2.0% over 2018 (31,591 cases). The crime rate also depicts a small increase from 7.1 in 2018 to
7.2 in 2019. A total of 38,685 juveniles were apprehended in 32,235 cases, out of which 35,214
juveniles were apprehended under cases of IPC and 3,471 juveniles were apprehended under cases of
SLL during 2019. State of Madhya Pradesh followed by Chhattisgarh have reported high
incidence of juvenile crimes under IPC. Among UT s Delhi reported highest crime followed by
Chandigarh.
Juveniles Apprehended (Crime Head, Age Group & Gender-wise) – 2016
Below 12 Below 12 total 12-16 yrs 12-16yrs total

yrs yrs
boys girls boys girls
Total 579 34 613 10039 308 1034710347
Cognizable
IPC
Crimes
Total 23 1 24 596 14 61061610
Cognizable
SLL
Crimes
S.NO MAJOR JUVENILE NO OF CASES

CRIMES 2016
1 Theft 4930
2 Hurt 3800
3 Burglary 2271
4 Riots 1081
5 Rape 858
6 Murder 679
7 Robbery 551
8 Attempt to commit murder 543
9 Kidnapping & Abduction 524
10 Death due to Negligence 211
2.5 Remedies for Juvenile Delinquent
Scholars have suggested two effective remedies to deal with this problem:
2.5.1 Preventive Method
Preventive measures to tackle the problem of juvenile delinquency include

(i) Creating and inspiring a team of work of private and public agencies devoted to preventive work
(ii) Giving proper training to the members and staff of all organizations concerned with delinquency
control
(iii) Establishing child guidance clinics to give appropriate treatment to the disturbed and maladjusted
children
(iv) Educating of the family so as to help the parents to realize the importance of giving proper
attention to the needs of their young children
(v) Giving proper assistance to under privileged children to build in them good character and law
abiding attitude
(vi) Adopting various means of propaganda such as radio, movies, television, newspapers, magazines
etc., to realize the importance of law abidingness and how it is always appreciated and rewarded
(vii) Improving the social environment- slum area, busy market places, gambling centers etc., to
prevent children to get polluted
(viii) The problems of beggary and poverty are to be removed or controlled and the general economic
standards of the people must be increased to prevent children from becoming delinquents due to
economic hardships.
2.5.2 Rehabilitative Method

The main purpose of the method of rehabilitation is neither to punish nor to take revenge upon
the delinquent. The intention behind this method is to help the delinquent children to get proper
guidance and training so that they become normal children and never repeat delinquent acts.
Following were the measures taken for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency in
India after 1850
Apprentices Act, 1850: The First Juvenile legislation in India to deal with the children was
passed in 1850 called as the. This act pertained to the children between the ages of ten and
eighteen years.
Reformatory School Act, 1876: The year 1876 led to the establishment of Reformatory Schools
through the Reformatory School Act of 1876. The act empowered the court to detain boys in
such institutions for a period of two to seven years. Those boys who had attained the age of 18
years were exempted.
Criminal Procedure,1898: The Act which laid down specialized treatment for juvenile
offenders was the code of Criminal Procedure in the year 1898. It provided for the commitment
of juvenile offenders up to the age of 15 years to reformatory schools .
Indian Jail Committee Act (1919-20): It was a major act which came in lieu for Juvenile
.Firstly the act condemned the practice of sending juvenile to jail and recommended for setting
up of special courts for the trial and treatment of children and young offenders. For treatment of
young juvenile delinquents it suggested remand homes and certified schools.
The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 The act envisaged a comprehensive approach towards justice for
children in situations of abuse, exploitation and social maladjustment and laid down a uniform
legal framework for juvenile justice in the country so as to ensure that no child under any
circumstances is lodged in jail or police lock up.The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 primarily deals
with the two main types of juvenile offenders namely-
•Delinquent Juvenile
•Neglected Juvenile
According to the Juvenile Justice Act (31) a delinquent juvenile means a boy who has not
attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years and
they have been found to have committed an offence.
The Neglected Juvenile has been defined under section 2(1) of Juvenile Justice Act as juvenile-
(i) Who is found begging
(ii) Is found without home or settled place
(iii) Has a parent or guardian who is unfit to exercise control over the juvenile
(iv) Lives in brothel or with a prostitute or frequently goes to any place used for the purpose of
prostitution or is found to associate with any prostitute or any other person who leads an
immoral drunken or deprived life.
(v) Who is being or is likely to be abused or exploited for immoral or illegal purposes or
unconscious gain.
The Juvenile Justice System functions on three main components:-
•Agencies who bring the Juveniles to notice of law

•The juvenile Welfare board & juvenile Courts
•Juvenile Homes & Special Homes
Juvenile Justice Care & Protection Act 2000
The general assembly of UN convention adopted a convention on rights of the child in 1989. The
said convention was ratified by India in 1992. In accordance with International convention on
Rights of the child, the Parliament of India enacted the juvenile justice (care and protection of
children) Act, 2000.
The Major Changes Brought by The Act were:
 Removal Of Age Disparity: Disparity of age between male and female child has been
removed and both have been kept at par i.e. 18 years of age.
 Two New Terminologies: Two terminologies for child i.e. juvenile in conflict with law
and child in need of care and protection have been used through its Juvenile Justice
Board and the Child Welfare Committee respectively.
 Two different systems for disposition Two different systems for disposition of juvenile
in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection have been used through
its Juvenile Justice Board and the Child Welfare Committee. Juvenile Justice Board-
According to Section 4 of the said Act, the Juvenile Justice Board shall be constituted for
the group of districts or a District by the state Government for dealing with all
Proceedings as to the juveniles in conflict with law. The Board consists of a Metropolitan
Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of first class and the two social workers including one
woman, forming a bench having the power conferred by the code of criminal procedure
1974.
 Provision of Observatory and Special Homes:
Section 8 of the act provides for the provision by any state government to establish
and maintain either by itself or under an agreement with voluntary organisations, observation
homes .In every district or a group of districts. “Observation Home” means a home established
by a state government or by a voluntary organisation for temporary keeping of any juvenile in
conflict with law during the enquiry.
Section 9 of the juvenile justice act provides for the state government to establish
and maintain either by itself or under an agreement with voluntary organisations, special homes
in every district or a group of districts for reception and rehabilitation of juvenile in conflict with
law under this act.
Apprehension of Juvenile in Conflict With Law

Section10 of the act states that as soon as a juvenile in conflict with law is
apprehended by police, he shall be placed under the charge of the special juvenile police unit or
the designated police officer who shall immediately report the matter to a member of the board.
The State Government may make rules consistent with this Act, (I) To provide for person
through whom (including registered voluntary organizations) any juvenile in conflict with law
may be produced Before the Board. (ii) To provide the manner in which such juvenile may be
sent to an Observation home.
Control of Custody over Juvenile

Section 11 of the act states that any person in whose charge- a juvenile is placed in
pursuance of this act shall, while the order is in force have the control over the juvenile as he
would have if he were his parents, and shall be responsible for his maintenance, and the juvenile
shall continue in his charge for the period stated by competent authority, notwithstanding that he
is claimed by his parents or any other person.
Special Juvenile Police Unit

Section 13 The officer in- charge of the police station or the special juvenile police
unit to which the juvenile is brought shall, as soon as may be after the arrest, inform: the parent
or guardian of the juvenile, if he can be found of such arrest and direct him to be present at the
Board before which the juvenile will appear; and The probation officer of such arrest to enable
him to obtain information regarding the Antecedent and family background of the juvenile and
other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the juvenile Justice Board for making
the inquiry.
Orders Prohibited Against Juvenile

Section 16 of the act provides that the following orders cannot be passed in relation to a
Juvenile:-
 A Juvenile cannot be sentenced to death

•A Juvenile cannot be imprisoned for life
•A Juvenile cannot be committed to prison in default of
•Payment of fine or (ii) Furnishing surety
•Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006
To give further effect to the provisions of the Constitution and relevant international
instruments, the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 was amended
in the year 2006. The new Act now called as Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of
Children ) Amendment Act,2006( 33 of 2006) was enacted to consolidate and amend the
law relating to juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and
protection, by providing for proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their
developmental needs, and by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and
disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation.
The new amended act has laid down the major fundamental principles such as Principle
of presumption of innocence ( Section 3(I)), Principle of dignity and worth ( Section 3(II) ),
Principle of Right to be heard ( Section 3 (III) ), Principle of Safety ( no harm, no abuse, no
neglect, no exploitation and no maltreatment) Section to be followed in administration of
Juvenile Justice and Protection of Children. Principle of presumption of innocence makes a
presumption of a juvenile or child or juvenile in conflict with law to be innocent of any
mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years while Principle of dignity
and worth conjures of treatment that is consistent with the child’s sense of dignity and
worth which is a fundamental principle of juvenile justice. The juvenile’s or child’s right
to dignity and worth has to be respected and protected throughout the entire process of
dealing with the child from the first contact with law enforcement agencies to the
implementation of all measures for dealing with the child. Principle of Right to be heard
gives every child right to express his views freely in all matters affecting his interest
shall be fully respected through every stage in the process of juvenile justice. Under
Principle of Safety at all stages, from the initial contact till such time he remains in
contact with the care and protection system, and thereafter, the juvenile or child or
juvenile in conflict with law shall not be subjected to any harm, abuse, neglect,
maltreatment, corporal punishment or solitary or otherwise any confinement in jails and
extreme care shall be taken to avoid any harm to the sensitivity of the juvenile or the
child.
The JJ Act has created a two-tier system in which cases of juveniles are to be taken up.
The cases of Juvenile in conflict with law is adjudicated upon the Juvenile Justice Board
as described in Section 4 of the Act whereas the cases of children in need of care and
protection are taken up by the Child Welfare Committee as described in Section 29 of
the Act.
Self –assessment Question

1. Explain the major features of Juvenile Justice Care & Protection Act, 2000.
2.6 Summary
The current situation with regard to juvenile crime and delinquency can be characterized by the
following basic facts and trends:
 There has been an observed increase in violent and aggravated crimes among youth in India
especially in the age group of 16- 18 years
 Around 94% of the juvenile delinquents are males which makes it a male phenomenon, with
crime rates for male juvenile and young adult offenders more than those for females.
 Theft, Hurt, Burglary, Riots and Rape are the major juvenile crimes which are showing an
increase every year.
 The process of globalization and the greater mobility of large population groups have led to
an increase in criminal activity associated with intolerance towards members of other
cultures.
 Quite often, aggressive and criminal behaviour is positively portrayed in the media, creating
a confused picture of acceptable societal norms within some youth subcultures.
 Children and adolescents in difficult circumstances constitute ready reserves for organized
crime, participation in armed conflicts, human and drug trafficking, and sexual exploitation.
 The disintegration of families, poverty, and the death of parents and bad peer group are found
to be the major causes of juvenile delinquency. Poverty, social exclusion and unemployment
often cause marginalization, and young people who are marginalized are more susceptible to
developing and maintaining delinquent behaviour. Furthermore, young people are more
likely to become victims of crimes committed by juvenile delinquents.
 Delinquency is largely a group phenomenon; it is frequently engaged in by certain

subcultures of young people who have jointly assumed a particular identity.
 In order to make delinquency policies truly effective, higher priority must be given to
marginalized, vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in society, and issues relating to
youth in conflict with the law should be a central focus of national youth policies. The
administration of juvenile justice should be decentralized in order to encourage local
authorities to become actively involved in preventing youth crime and reintegrating young
offenders into society through support projects, with the ultimate aim of fostering responsible
citizenship.
2.7Glossary
Observatory Home: It means a home established by a State Government or by a voluntary
organisation and certified by that State Government under section 8 as an observation home for
the juvenile in conflict with law
Delinquent: Child who has been found to have committed an offence.
Juvenile: A young girl or a boy aged below 18 years
Juvenile in Conflict with Law: refers any person below the age of 18 who has come in contact
with the justice system as a result of committing a crime or being suspected of committing a
crime
Juvenile Justice System

The juvenile justice system consists of laws, policies, guidelines, customary norms, systems,
professionals, institutions and treatment, specifically applicable to children in conflict with the
law.
2.8 References
 Bajpai, Asha. 2005. Child Rights in India. Law, Policy, Practice. Oxford University Press,
USA
 Champion, Dean J. 2009. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing and the
Law. Prentice Hall
 Kumari, Ved. 2009. The Juvenile Justice System in India: From Welfare to Rights .Oxford
University Press
 Tappan, Paul W. 1949. Juvenile Delinquency. McGraw Hill Series, New York
2.9Further Readings
 Bynum Jack E, Thompson William E. 2009. Juvenile Delinquency: A Sociological

Approach. Allyn & Bacon.
 Marshal, Clinard. 1974. Sociology of Deviant Behaviour. Holt Reinhart and Winston, Inc.
New York.
 Menon, Sugata. 2000. Young Criminals: Crime and Punishment in Juvenile Delinquency.
Kanishka Publishers. New Delhi.
2.10 Model questions
 Differentiate between biological and psychological theories of juvenile delinquency?
 What are the major causes for juvenile delinquency?
 Which are the major juvenile crimes in India? Explain the major features of Juvenile
Justice Care & Protection Act, 2000.
Lesson 3
Crime
Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Legal definitions of Crime
3.3 Behavioural Perspective of Crime
3.4 Sociological Perspective of Crime
3.5 Classification of Crime
3.6 Causative Factors of Crime
3.7 Summary
3.9 Model question
3.0 Objectives
 Understand the meaning of crime

 Explain the legal, behavioural and Sociological definition of crime
3.1 Introduction
All societies have certain norms, beliefs, customs and traditions which are readily accepted by its
members. These norms, beliefs or customs not only provide order in society but are considered
conducive for the wellbeing and all-round development of its people. Violation or Infringement
of these cherished norms and customs is condemned as ant- social behavior. Crime is a salient
fact. It has become an integral part of the risks we face in everyday life. In both scholarly and
public opinion crime is associated with harm and violence; harm to individuals, destruction of
property, and the denial of respect to people and institutions. Under this background many
writers have defined ‘crime’ as an anti-social, immoral or sinful behavior.
3.2 Legal Definitions of Crime

According to the legal definition, ‘crime’ is any form of conduct which is declared to be socially
harmful in a State and as such forbidden by law under pain of some punishment.
According to Paul Tappan “An intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law
committed without any defence or justification and penalized by the law as felony or
misdemeanor”. It becomes essential to understand meaning of few terms.
Misdemeanors are non- serious, minor crimes that the government punishes by confinement in a
local jail for a year or less. Examples include petty theft, simple assault, disorderly conduct, and
disturbing the peace. Felonies are serious crimes that the government punishes by death or
incarceration in a prison for at least a year. This group includes such crimes as murder, rape,
robbery, and burglary.
According to Cross & Jones , “crime as a legal wrong, the remedy for which is punishment for
the offender at the instance of the State”.
John Gillin defined crime as an act that has been shown to be actually harmful to the society or
that is believed to be socially harmful by a group of people that has power to enforce its beliefs
and that places such act upon the ban of positive penalties. Thus he considers crime as an
offence against the law of the land.
Blackstone and Stephen stress that crimes are breaches of 'those laws which injure the
community. Stephen further added that crime is an act which is forbidden by law and revolting to
the moral sentiments of the society.
In the words of Donald Taft, "crime is a social injury and an expression of subjective opinion
varying in time and place".
Halsbury defines crime as an unlawful act which is an offence against the public and the
perpetrator of that act is liable to legal punishment.
From the foregoing definition , it may be said that a crime is a wrong to society involving the
breach of a legal wrong which has criminal consequences attached to it i.e. prosecution by the
State in the criminal court and the possibility of punishment being imposed on the wrongdoer'
Majority of the rules which define a certain behavior as “criminal” may be found in
constitutions, enactments, judicial and administrative regulations. Such rules and laws are
enforced by police and the courts, which simply apply the law. There are rules, such as trade
union rules, family rules, in Christianity, church rules are not treated as criminal law and
violation of such rules does not amount to crime. Violations of rules made by the state are
crimes.
There are three elements in criminal law namely (i) Politicality (ii) Specificity and (iii)
Uniformity. Politicality means that the law, the violation of which attracts penalty is made by the
political superior or the State. Violation of any other law does not attract penal provisions of
criminal law. Specificity means that only certain specific acts of delinquency are treated as crime
and not all. Uniformity implies that the law must be applied to all without any exception on
grounds of a person’s social status; an act of crime is a crime no matter whosoever perpetrates it.
It also implies that the law enforcement process shall be administered without regard to the status
of the person who committed the crime or are accused of committing the crime.
Another element connected with crime is that of Penal Sanctions. It means that violator of the
law will be punished. A criminal law must provide a penalty; otherwise it is no law at all.
However, the punishment varies from crime to crime or from person to person. For example if a
crime is committed by a person who is less than 18 years of age it won’t be punished by the
court as he/ she would come under the category of ‘child’. The act would be called as act of
juvenile delinquency but the same act if committed by an adult would become crime.
Thus according to legal interpretation of crime, ‘Crime is a set of circumstances for which the
law permits imposition of criminal penalty. Crime is not a natural phenomenon but a legal one;
whatever the law maker defines as crime is crime’.
Legal Connotations of Crime

1. A behavior can only be called as a crime if there is a certain external consequence or
harm. A crime has a harmful impact on social interests of society but there has to be any
act of commission of the crime. A mental or emotional state of crime is not enough. Even
if one decides to commit a crime but changes his mind before he does anything about it,
he has committed no crime.
2. The harm caused by crime must be legally forbidden, must have been proscribed in penal
law. Anti- social behavior is not crime unless it is prohibited by law. The law must have
specifically prohibited the harm which occurs.
3. There must be “conduct”; that is, there must be an intentional or reckless action which
brings the harmful consequences about. One who is physically forced to pull the trigger
of a gun does not commit murder, even if someone dies from the bullet.
4. Mens Rea or “criminal intent” must be present. According to legal scholars Mens Rea
refers to deliberate functioning to reach a goal. It states that “motives” for a crime might
be “good’ but the intention itself might be an intention to affect a harm forbidden by the
criminal law, a criminal intent.
5. For a crime to take place both Mens Rea and conduct should occur simultaneously. For
example if a policeman who goes into a house to make an arrest and who then commits a
crime after making the arrest while still in the house , cannot be considered trespasser
from the beginning. The criminal intent and the conduct do not fuse or occur
simultaneously.
6. There must be a “causal” relation between the legally forbidden harm and the voluntary
misconduct. The “conduct” of one who fails to file an income tax return is his failure to
take pen and ink, fill out the form, etc.; the “harm” is the absence of a return in the
collector’s office. But if, for example, one shot a person (conduct) and the victim
suffocated while in a hospital recovering from the wound, the relationship between
conduct and harm (death) is not so clear cut.
7. There must be legally prescribed punishment. Not only must the harm be proscribed by
law but the proscription must carry a threat of punishment to violators. The voluntary
conduct must be punishable by law.
Shortcomings of Legalistic Definition

Some activities are not crimes even though they are immoral (watching pornography, torturing
animals, creating poor working conditions) Powerful individuals are able to influence the making
laws. Powerful individuals may escape the label “criminal” .Poor working conditions -Crime?
For many years, human rights groups have attacked Nike( a renowned brand of sports shoes) for
the low pay and terrible working conditions, and for the use of child labour. Over half of its
employees in Asia work more than sixty hours a week and have no day off Nike.
Self –assessment Question

Give legal definition of crime
3.3 BEHAVIOURAL / PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CRIME

Behaviour theory maintains that all human behaviour – including violent behaviour – is learned
through interaction with the social environment. Behaviourists argue that people are not born
with a violent disposition. Rather, they learn to think and act violently as a result of their day-to-
day experiences (Bandura, 1977). These experiences, proponents of the behaviourist tradition
maintain, might include observing friends or family being rewarded for violent behaviour, or
even observing the glorification of violence in the media. Studies of family life, for example,
show that aggressive children often model the violent behaviours of their parents.
The fundamental assumptions of psychological theories of criminality (and human behavior in
general) are:
1. The individual is the primary unit of analysis in psychological theories.
2. Personality is the major motivational element that drives behavior within individuals.
3. Normality is generally defined by social consensus.
4. Crimes are caused due to abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within
the personality of the individual.
5. Criminal behavior may be purposeful for the individual insofar as it addresses certain felt
needs.
6. Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a variety of causes, i.e., a diseased mind,
inappropriate learning or improper conditioning, the emulation of inappropriate role models, and
adjustment to inner conflicts.
7. It looks at how certain personality traits were conducive to criminal behavior with emphasis
placed strongly on intelligence and temperament.
The most prominent perspective which explains the psychological perspective of crime is
Sigmund Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory. According to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), all humans
have natural drives and urges present in unconscious mind. Furthermore, all humans have
criminal tendencies. Through the process of socialization, however, these tendencies are curbed
by the development of inner controls that are learned through childhood experience. Freud
hypothesized that the most common element that contributed to criminal behavior was faulty
identification by a child with her or his parents. The improperly socialized child may develop a
personality disturbance that causes her or him to direct antisocial impulses which may lead to his
commission of crime.
Freud explained the mental conflicts in the personality of criminals in terms of ID, EGO and
SUPEREGO, the three components of mental system. The ID generates biological impulses in
man such as sexual desires, hunger, lust for power, etc. The EGO is the thought process or
conscious personality, which grows out of contact with outside world. THE SUPEREGO is the
conscience a sense of right and wrong, which controls a person’s behaviour. The Ego meditates
between id impulses and superego controls.
SUPER EGO DEFECT- Crime often is a result of conflict between ID and SUPEREGO, where
the superego is dominated by violent and impulsive id. A criminal shows inadequate
development of conscience, poor psychological integration and low frustration tolerance.
Improper training of a child by the parents may result in a weak superego i.e. inability to
understand and accept values and norms of society.
John Bowlby in his ‘Maternal Deprivation’ approach explains that disruption in attachment
bond between mother and child in early years may lead to deviance or juvenile delinquency. A
child if exposed to family violence like frequent quarrels of his parents, father’s chronic
alcoholism can cause long term damage to ‘superego’ or conscience of the young child which
may result in his taking path to crime.
What is superego defect ?
Cognitive Development Theory

According to this approach, criminal behavior results from the way in which people organize
their thoughts about morality and the law. In 1958, Lawrence Kohlberg, a developmental
psychologist, formulated a theory concerning the development of moral reasoning. He posited
that there are three levels of moral reasoning, each consisting of two stages. During middle
childhood, children are at the first level of moral development. At this level, the preconventional
level, moral reasoning is based on obedience and avoiding punishment. The second level, the
conventional level of moral development, is reached at the end of middle childhood. The moral
reasoning of individuals at this level is based on the expectations that their family and significant
others have for them. Kohlberg found that the transition to the third level, the post conventional
level of moral development, usually occurs during early adulthood. At this level, individuals are
able to go beyond social conventions. They value the laws of the social system; however, they
are open to acting as agents of change to improve the existing law and order. People who do not
progress through the stages may become arrested in their moral development, and consequently
become delinquents.
3.4 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CRIME
Sociological theory of crime asserts that there are persons who do not conform to the established
norms and traditions prescribed by law. These persons do not adjust themselves within the
framework of normal standards of society and are more or less indifferent to societal norms. For
example those persons who commit crime as that of stealing is due to the fact that either these
persons have seen their parents or other members of the family stealing or are encouraged by
their seniors to take away things belonging to others. It is in this way that delinquents develop a
peculiar habit of stealing and committing thefts. This well explains that environmental factors
such as family relationship may at times contribute to delinquent behavior.
Raffaele Garofalo was the first legalist to attempt a sociological definition of crime.
“Crime is an immoral and harmful act which is regarded as ‘criminal’ by public opinion
because it is an injury to the morality”
The Sociological definitions explain the nature and cause of crime with social and personal
pathologies, such as poverty, bad housing, slum-residence, lack of recreational facilities,
inadequate and demoralized families, emotional instability and other traits and conditions.
Caldwell (1956) has explained it as "an act or a failure to act that is considered to be so
detrimental to the well-being of a society, as judged by its prevailing standards, that action
against it cannot be entrusted to private initiative or to haphazard methods but must be taken by
an organized society in accordance with tested procedures."
Thorsten Sellin (1970) has described crime as "violation of conduct norms of the normative
groups". Marshall Clinard (1957) has, however, maintained that all deviations from social norms
are not crimes. He talks of three types of deviation: (i) tolerated deviation, (ii) deviation which is
mildly disapproved, and (iii) deviation which is strongly disapproved. He perceives the third type
of deviation as crime.
Let us take an example. Gandhiji not only himself deviated from caste norms but also prompted
others not to follow them. Yet, Gandhiji was not considered a deviant because his deviation was
for the good of the society. The deviation that harms the society is strongly disapproved.
Positivists, conservatives, and those who explain crime in terms of 'strains' accept the social
definition of crime Positivists, like Ferri (1901), Eysenck (1969) and Miller (1958), believe that
there is a consensus of values in society that can be scientifically ascertained.
According to conservatives like Nisbet (1970), crimes are the activities which threaten social
order, offend morality, and endanger person or property. Attacks on tradition as well as on
people's respect for authority are a considerable threat to an ordinary society. Pornographic
books and sexy films undermine morals of people and are, therefore, as much a danger to society
as enemy agents.
Strain theorists, like Clinard (1964), Merton (1964) and Matza (1969), consider crime as an
action which is dysfunctional to society as well as an individual. Thus, they consider not only
theft, robbery and homicide, etc., as crimes but also truancy, drug addiction, vandalism, suicide,
etc. as crimes.
All these acts create circumstances in which a wide range of disorder occurs. As functionalists,
they note that some crimes may be directly functional to the social order, being the result of
'normal' behaviour rather than strain, and should not be considered as major indications of
disequilibrium. Strain theorists do not, therefore, limit themselves to using the official crime
statistics, but, rather see them, along with other social indices, as useful and usable.
Criminologists with a sociological perspective have not claimed that there is no place for legal
definition of crime in criminology. They have only drawn attention to situations in which people
who engage in 'criminal' behaviour are either not caught or are acquitted by the courts because of
inadequate evidence or legal loopholes or pressures. Emile Durkheim (1893) Made three specific
claims about the nature of crime:
 Crime is normal
 Crime is inevitable
 Crime is useful
Crime is normal: Crimes occur in all societies. They are closely tied to the facts of collective
life crime rates tend to increase as societies evolve from lower to higher phases. In societies with
mechanical solidarity, punishment was more severe. A crime against another person was crime
against the entire society Rejection was the most terrible punishment.
Crime is inevitable: As no society can ever be entirely rid of crime. Each member in society
faces variation in background, education, heredity, social influences. Therefore it is not possible
for every individual to adhere or follow the norms and laws of the society.
Crime is useful: Crime is indispensable to the normal evolution of law and morality. According
to Durkheim crime in society helps us to know that which part or component of the society is
malfunctioning. For example, National Crime Record Bureau of India (NCRB) reveals the
alarming increase in number of crimes against women which is a clear indication the our police
and legal mechanism have failed to provide security to women in our society. Moreover presence
of crime also helps to build and strengthen the collective conscience amongst its masses.
Emile Durkheim stated that crime persists in all societies and therefore crimeless society is
impossible. All societies function on some proscribed rules and norms. Violation or breaches of
such rules result in punishment. He further argued that crime originates in society and is a
fundamental condition of social organization. The changes in societal norms and economic
standards necessitate change in laws and rules. But when there is sudden change in power,
wealth or factors of control, the societal norms are often overthrown giving rise to lawlessness
and multiplicity of crimes.
Thus, the legal and non-legal definitions of crime do not always coincide because the legal and
the social codes of a society can often differ. For example, accepting a bribe (or corruption) is
illegal, but, in reality it is a normal activity indulged in by a large number of people, including
the rulers of a country (as happened in the Hawala case in India in which a large number of
politicians, bureaucrats, and public servants (about 115) were alleged to have received millions
of rupees 65 crore in all between 1988 and 1991 from Jain brothers in the garb of donations for
political parties).
Similarly, accepting dowry may be seen as a crime by virtue of the Anti-Dowry Act, making it
illegal, or, it may be seen as part and parcel of sanctioned social behaviour of people in the
Indian society.
Since the legal definition of crime is precise and unambiguous and since the system of our
criminal justice is based on legal approach, it is this (legal) definition which is used for all
operational purposes, in all official actions, in compiling statistics, and in empirical
investigations.
3.5 CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES

Crimes may be of different types and grades. Crimes may cause bodily injuries to others, they
may cause economic injuries, they may cause social injuries, and they may cause national or
state injuries. Similarly crimes may be of different grades, such as simple crimes and grave
crimes. Besides there are international crimes, that is crimes by states committed against other
state by way of aggression or war.
The Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) classifies all the crimes into two categories:
(i) Cognizable - Sec.2(c) Cr.P.C. (ii) Non-cognizable - Sec.2 (l) Cr.P.C.
Cognizable Crimes
A Cognizable offence or case is defined as the one which an officer in-charge of a police station
may investigate without the order of a magistrate and effect arrest without warrant. The police
have a direct responsibility to take immediate action on the receipt of a complaint or of credible
information in such crimes, visit the scene of the crime, investigate the facts, apprehend the
offender and arraign him before a court of law having jurisdiction over the matter. Cognizable
crimes are broadly categorised as those falling either under the ‘Indian Penal Code (IPC)’ or
under the ‘Special and Local Laws (SLL)’.
Non-cognizable Crimes
Non-Cognizable crimes are defined as those which cannot be investigated by police without the
order of a competent magistrate. Police do not initiate investigation in non-cognizable crimes
except with magisterial permission. First schedule of the Cr.P.C. gives the classification of the
offences of the IPC into cognizable & non-cognizable categories. Various crimes that are being
registered and investigated by different law enforcement agencies are broadly grouped under the
following categories for Statistical Information system.
Broad classification of crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

i) Crimes against body: Murder, Attempt to commit murder, Culpable homicide not amounting
to murder, Kidnapping & Abduction, Hurt, Causing death by negligence;
ii) Crimes against property: Dacoity, Preparation and assembly to commit Dacoity, Robbery,
Burglary and Theft;
iii) Crimes against public order: Riots and Arson;
iv) Economic crimes: Criminal breach of trust, Cheating & Counterfeiting;
v) Crimes against women: Rape, Dowry death, Cruelty by husband or his relatives, Assault on
woman with intent to outrage her modesty, Insult to the modesty of women and Importation of
girls from foreign country;
vi) Crimes against children: Child rape, Kidnapping & Abduction of children, Procreation of
minor girls, Selling and Buying of girls for prostitution, Abetment of suicide, Exposure &
abandonment, Infanticide and Foeticide.
vii) Other IPC crimes.
Trends of Crime in India

A total of 51,56,172 cognizable crimes comprising 32,25,701 Indian Penal Code (IPC) crimes
and 19,30,471 Special & Local Laws (SLL) crimes were registered in 2019. It shows an increase
of 1.6% in registration of cases over 2018 (50,74,635 cases). Crime rate registered per lakh
population has increased marginally from 383.5 in 2018 to 385.5 in 2019. Rate of total
Cognizable Crime (IPC) for 2019 is highest in Kerala, followed by Haryana and then Assam.
Offences Affecting the Human Body A total of 10,50,945 cases of offences affecting the
human body were registered which accounted for 32.6% of total IPC crimes during 2019.
Murder
A total of 28,918 cases of murder were registered during 2019, showing a marginal decrease of
0.3% over 2018.
Kidnapping & Abduction
A total of 1,05,037 cases of kidnapping & abduction were registered during 2019, showing a
marginal decrease of 0.7% over 2018 (1,05,734 cases). [
Offences against Public Tranquillity
A total of 63,359 cases of offences against public tranquility were registered under various
sections of IPC during 2019, out of which rioting (46,209 cases) accounted for 72.9% of total
such cases.
Crime against Women
A total of 4,05,861 cases of crime against women were registered during 2019, showing an
increase of 7.3% over 2018 (3,78,236 cases).[
Crime against Children
A total of 1,48,185 cases of crime against children were registered during 2019, showing an
increase of 4.5% over 2018.
Juveniles in Conflict with Law
A total of 32,235 cases have been registered against Juveniles during 2019, depicting a small
increase of 2.0% over 2018 (31,591 cases).
Crime against Senior Citizens
A total of 27,696 cases were registered for committing crime against Senior Citizens (aged above
60 years), showing an increase of 13.7% in registration over 2018 (24,349 cases).
Crime/Atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs) & Scheduled Tribes (STs)
A total of 45,935 cases were registered for committing crime against Scheduled Castes (SCs), A
total of 8,257 cases were registered for committing crime against Scheduled Tribes (STs),
Economic Offences
A total of 1,65,782 cases were registered under economic offences, showing an increase of 6.1%
in registration over 2018 (1,56,268 cases).
Prevention of Corruption Act
A total of 4,243 cases have been registered in 2019 by State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACBs) as
compared to 4,129 cases in 2018, showing an increase of 2.8%.
Cyber Crimes
A total of 44,546 cases were registered under Cyber Crimes, showing a huge increase of 63.5%
in registration over 2018 (27,248 cases). Crime rate under this category increased from 2.0 in
2018 to 3.3 in 2019. During 2019, 60.4% of cyber-crime cases registered were for the motive of
fraud (26,891 out of 44,546 cases) followed by sexual exploitation with 5.1% (2,266 cases) and
causing disrepute with 4.2% (1,874 cases).
Offences against State
A total of 7,569 cases have been registered in 2019 as compared to 8,536 cases in the year 2018,
showing a decrease of 11.3%. Out of 7,569 cases, 80.3% of cases were registered under The
Prevention of Public Property Act (6,079 Cases) followed by 1,226 (16.2%) cases under The
Unlawful Activities Act.
Environment Related Offences
During the year 2019 a total of 34,671 cases were registered under Environment Related
Offences as compared to 35,196 cases in the year 2018, showing a decrease of 1.5%. Crime
head-wise cases revealed that the cases registered under The Cigarette and Other Tobacco
Products Act (COTPA) with 67.4 % (22,667 Cases) were the highest followed by Noise
Pollution Acts (State/Central) with 24.6% (8,537 Cases).
Crime against Foreigners and Crime by Foreigners
A total of 409 crimes were registered for crime against foreigners (Tourist and Resident) as
compared to 517 cases in 2018, showing a decrease of 20.9%. Most of the cases registered were
under Theft (142) and Cheating (41). Out of 517 victims in 409 registered cases, 56.4% of
Human Trafficking
A total of 2,260 cases of Human Trafficking were registered in 2019 as compared to 2,278 cases
in the year 2018, showing a decrease of 0.8%. A total of 6,616 victims have been reported to be
trafficked in which 2,914 children and 3,702 adults were trafficked. Apart from this, 6,571
victims have been rescued from clutches of traffickers. A total of 5,128 persons were arrested in
2,260 cases of trafficking.
Missing Persons
A total of 3,80,526 persons (1,32,089 male, 2,48,397 female and 40 transgender) were reported
missing in 2019.The number of persons reported missing has increased by 9.5% in 2019 from
3,47,524 persons missing during 2018.
During the year 2019, a total of 3,48,608 persons (1,25,558 males, 2,22,949 females and 101
transgender) were recovered/traced.
Missing Children
A total of 73,138 children (21,074 male, 52,049 female and 15 transgender) were reported
missing in 2019.
Offences against Property
The cases registered under offences against property have increased by 6.5% from 8,02,372
cases in 2018 to 8,54,618 cases in 2019.
Crimes under Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Special & Local Laws (SLL) - 2017-2019
percentage of crime rate
Year IPC SLL Total %

2017 237.7 150.9 388.6 61.2
2018 236.7 146.7 383.5 61.7
2019 241.2 144.3 385.5 62.6
CAUSATIVE FACTORS OF CRIME
 Personal Pathology: It consists of physical factors like poor health, chronic diseases;
physical deformities may cause an inferiority complex and impel the individual to seek
for short-cuts to compete in this competitive world. Mental factors like low intelligence,
neurotic or psychotic disorders may lead to exploitation or compulsive actions or deviant
sexual gratification. There is the possibility of prolonged emotional and social
withdrawal, the frustration culminating in an outburst of violent behaviour.
 Biological Causes - According to this approach criminals are born and not made. There
are certain physical, biological and mental factors within the criminals, which made them
to commit crimes. For example, they are mentally deficient or are less sensitive to pain
and therefore they have little regard for the sufferings of others. Deviants had some
organic defect or pathology, which they were born with and which influenced or caused
behaviour. A number of genetically determined characteristics found in criminals were
large jaws, high cheekbones, large ears, extra nipples, toes and fingers and insensitivity to
pain. Mesomorphic body structures such as stocky and rounded individuals were tended
to be more active and aggressive.
 Psychological Causes - According to the psychologists deviants were psychologically
unbalanced due to some emotional disturbance in their past. This imbalance influenced or
caused their deviant behaviour. A child becomes a deviant owing to wrong socialization
process, usually in the mother- child relationship. This ‘defective socialization’ involves
emotional disturbance that leads to the formation of maladjusted personality traits.
 Culture Conflicts - In a dynamic society social change is an inevitable phenomenon.
Impact of modernization, urbanization and industrialization in modern dynamic society
result in social disorganization and this may lead to culture conflicts between different
sections of society. The difference may be between old and new values, local and
imported values and traditional values and government imposed values. The shift of
population due to migration or immigration quite often affects the crime rate of a given
place. The culture conflict between inhabitants and immigrants results in deviant
behaviour. For example the immigration problem which India faced during Indo-Pak
partition days in 1947 and Bangladesh partition in 1971 are some major examples which
illustrate cultural conflicts in our society due to social disorganization. Killing of people
in Sri Lanka since 1986 due to ethnic riots due to conflict between the LTTE and
government and recently ethic clashes in Assam in India explain the nature of cultural
and ethnic conflicts which involve incidences of murder, arson, loot, kidnapping, riots.
 Family Conditions: There are various family conditions which have been considered
responsible for the causation of delinquency such as break in the family unit, the size of
the family, sibling position, unsatisfactory parent child relationship, demoralized home
conditions, lack of discipline and control over children and economic inadequacy.
Broken Home Factor. Where there is break in the family either due to death of the
mother or the father or both or due to their divorce or separation it has been recognized to
be one of the important factors in causing delinquency.
Size of Family. The larger the family, the more difficult it is to support and to supervise;
consequently, children are neglected and get into trouble.
Lack of Supervision or Control over Children. Lack of supervision or control over
children by parents has also been an important cause in juvenile delinquency. This lack of
parental supervision may be in the form of actual neglect, ignorance of parents,
temperament or personality of parents, absence of parents from home due to their
employment.
 Political Interference The excessive interference of politicians in executive function of

the Government weakens the morale of the administrators as well as the police with the
result there is spontaneous growth in crime-rate. The assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi
touches the climax of political crime in India. The mass killings in Punjab and Kashmir
due to extremist activities are yet other illustrations.
 Economic conditions also influence criminality to a considerable extent. Crimes such as
hoarding, undue profiteering, black marketing etc, are essential outcome of economic
changes. Employment of women and their other outdoor activities have enhanced the
opportunities for sex- crime. The Marxist theory has emphasized that all human behavior
is determined by economic factors. It holds that the criminal is a product of the economic
environment which provides him ideals and goals. In a Capitalist system, man
concentrates only on himself and this leads to selfishness. Man is interested only in
producing for himself, especially in producing a surplus which he can exchange for
profit. He is not interested in the needs of others. Capitalism is characterized by private
ownership of property. Thus there occurs a wide gap between property owners and
property-less. Therefore those who own means of production exploit others for economic
benefit. This results in crime owing to poverty.
 Ecology of Crime: Ecology is the study of people and institutions in relation to
environment. Geographical conditions also affect the incidence of crime in a particular
region or locality. In India the impact of ecology on crime is apparently to be seen in
dacoit infested forest regions of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh where
opportunities for escape and detection are plenty. Today areas of North eastern states like
Assam, Nagaland have become major areas of crimes perpetrated by Naxalites, Bodos
etc. Metropolitan cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata have become major centers of
crime against women and property.
 Influence of Media: Excessive violence, vulgarity and obscenity depicted in television
and movies adversely affect the viewers particularly the young boys and girls who often
tend to imitate the same in their real life situations. The rising incidences of juvenile
delinquency are essentially the result of evil effect of violence and vulgarism and
undesirable sex exposure depicted in movies or television.
 Absence of modernized law, delay and corruption in the justice delivery system .
3.7 Summary
The Legal, Psychological and Sociological definitions of crime have explained the concept of
crime from various perspectives. Legal perspective sees crime as any conduct or behavior which
violates societal norms, rules or harms societal interests and therefore is punishable by law. For a
behavior to be called as criminal there must be certain external consequences or “harm”, harm
must be legally forbidden, presence of Mens –Rea or “criminal intent” and a legally prescribed
punishment. The behavioral perspective sees the cause of criminality within the individual’s
distorted personality due to faulty or defective socialization process, deprivation of mother’s
love, bad childhood experiences which affect the psyche of an individual resulting in his taking
path of a crime. Sociologists on other hand trace the cause of criminality within environmental
factors. They relate concept of crime and punishment on the social values, accepted norms and
behavioral patterns of a particular society at a given time. Like society, crimes are also varying
content changing with the changes in social structure. Crime is relative and unavoidable
phenomenon of a society. It is a learnt process. The modern complexities of human life have
contributed to the rising incidence of crime.
3.8 Glossary
Legal definition of crime: According to the legal definition, ‘crime’ is any form of conduct
which is declared to be socially harmful in a State and as such forbidden by law under pain of
some punishment.
Mens –Rea the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as
opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.
Cognizable crime: A Cognizable offence or case is defined as the one which an officer in-
charge of a police station may investigate without the order of a magistrate and effect arrest
without warrant.
Non-Cognizable crimes: Non-Cognizable crimes are defined as those which cannot be
investigated by police without the order of a competent magistrate. Police do not initiate
investigation in non-cognizable crimes except with magisterial permission.
Ecology of Crime The social ecology of crime is the study of one particular behavioral outcome
of these processes, the violation of rules of conduct defined in law. It focuses on the role of the
environment in the development of people’s differential propensity to engage in crime and their
differential exposure to settings conducive to engagement in acts of crime.
3.9 References
Ahuja Ram .2010. Criminology. Rawat Publications,Jaipur.
Paranjape N.V. 2006. Criminology and Penology. Central Law Publications,Allahabad.
Sutherland & Cressy . 2011. Principles of Criminology. Surjeet Publications.New Delhi.
Taft, Donald R. 1956. Criminology. NewYork: Macmillan.
Tappan, Paul. 2001. “Who is the Criminal?” In Stuart Henry and Mark Lanier (eds.), What is
Crime? New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 27–36.

Agarwal, Rajendra Saran & Sarvesh Kumar (eds.) (1986) Crimes & Punishment in New
Perspective, Delhi: Mittal Publication.
Sharma, Ram Nath (1993) Crime and Penology: Social Disorganization and Social Problems,
Delhi, Surjeet Publications.
3.11 Model Question

Explain the difference between Crime and deviance? What is the legal definition of Crime?
Lesson -4
Classical and Positivist school of Criminology
Structure
4.0 Objectives.
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Classical Criminology: A Historical Overview
4.3The positivist school of criminology
4.4 Summary

4.6 Model question
4.0 Objectives.
After going through this lesson you will be able to:
 Know about the classical school of criminology;

 discuss positivistic theory of criminality
 Compare and contrast positivism with the classical school of criminology.
4.1 Introduction
Classical Criminology emerged at a time when the naturalistic approach of the social contract
thinkers was challenging the spiritual approach that had dominated European thinking for more
than a thousand years. This spiritualistic approach formed the basis for criminal justice policies
in most of Europe. Classic Criminology was a protest against those criminal justice policies and
against the spiritual explanations of crime on which they were based. The Classical school of
criminology was highly influenced by the ideas of the European “Enlightenment”. The Classical
School developed in the eighteenth century in an attempt to reform the legal system and to
protect the accused against harsh and arbitrary action on the part of the State.
The Classical School defined crime in legal terms. It focused attention on crime as a legal entity.
The Classical School emphasized free will and theorized that punishment had a deterrent effect.
The field of criminology began with the classical school of criminology. The classical school
views human behavior as rational and assumes that people have the ability to choose right from
wrong.
4.2 Classical Criminology: A Historical Overview

Even though writers and philosophers for many centuries have expressed interest in criminal
behavior, criminologists have traditionally marked the beginning of the discipline of criminology
with the establishment of the classical school of criminology, which purports that people
rationally choose to commit criminal acts. The classical school of criminology was developed by
Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham in response to the primitive and cruel European justice
system that existed prior to the French Revolution of 1789. Basically, the eighteenth-century
classical school
• viewed human behavior as essentially rational in nature;
• felt that people had the ability to choose right from wrong;
• believed that the major element governing a person’s choice of action was the basic human
desire to obtain pleasure and avoid pain.
Leaders of the classical school about two hundred years ago proposed a number of legal and
judicial reforms premised along these lines to curb the problem of crime in their day. These
reforms included the imposition of penalties and deterrents severe enough to outweigh any
pleasure encountered through the commission of a criminal act. It was thought that people would
willingly refrain from crime once they had calculated that the penalties attached to it would
exceed the pleasure involved in the act itself. Because factors far beyond personal calculation
and motivation are involved in the manifestation of crime, however, proposals such as these had
little effect on the crime problem.
Before examining Beccaria’s ideas and contributions to criminology, you should understand that
the classical school has its roots in the idea that people who commit crime choose to do so after
weighing the consequences of their actions. Classical theory is based on the following three
assumptions:
1. All of us have free will to make a choice between getting what we want legally or illegally.
2. The fear of punishment can deter a person from committing a criminal act.
4. The community or society can control criminal and noncriminal behavior by making the pain
of punishment and penalties more severe than the pleasure from criminal activities and their
gains.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

One of the most important explanations of crime was found in the theology of St. Thomas
Aquinas, who lived five hundred years before Beccaria. Aquinas argued that there was a God-
given “natural law” that was revealed by observing, through the eyes of faith, people’s natural
tendency to do well rather than evil. The criminal law was based on and reflected this “natural
law”. People who commit crime (i.e., violate the criminal law) therefore also commit sin (i.e.,
violate the natural law).This spiritual explanation of crime, and others like it, formed the basis
for the criminal justice policies in Europe at the time. Because of crime was identified with sin,
the state claimed the moral authority to use many horrible and dreadful tortures on criminals. It
did so because the state claimed that it was acting in the place of God when it inflicted these
horrible punishments on criminals.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1678)
Contrary to Aquinas and other Christian philosophers, Thomas Hobbes argued that people
pursue their own interest (i.e., we are all selfish and we look just for ourselves) without caring
about whether they hurt anyone else. According to Hobbes, humans are naturally in a state of
“war of each against all” where no one is safe because people all people look out only for
themselves. But, Hobbes argued that people are rational enough to realize that this situation is
not good for anyone (Everybody looking for their own interest). Therefore, people “agree” to
give up their own selfish behavior as long as everyone else does the same thing. This is what
Hobbes called the social contract—something like a peace treaty that everyone agrees to give up
their selfish behavior to live in peace.
John Locke (1632-1704)

John Locke refined Hobbes’ social contract concept as well as introducing the idea that all
humans have natural rights. Locke argued that man was originally born into a state of nature
where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence, men was entitled to enjoy
the rights of life, liberty and property—Natural Rights. According to Locke, natural rights are
moral rights that each person has independently of social arrangements, conventions, or common
beliefs.
Locke argued that government and authority was based on natural law. Natural laws are innate to
humans and are given by God. According to Locke, the natural laws are written on everyone’s
heart. God does the writing, and promulgates natural laws by giving humans the capacity to
reason our way to knowledge of them. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that natural law dictated
that all human beings were fundamentally equal; he derived this argument from his theories of
human development. Since every human being walked into the world with the same capacities as
every other human being, who meant that inequality, was an unnatural result of the environments
that individuals are forced to live in, a belief that still underlies the Western notion of human
development. Human beings have a natural inclination to preserve their equality and
independence, since these are natural aspects of humanness. For Locke, humans enter into social
contracts only to help adjudicate disputes between individuals or groups. Absolute power, then,
is an unnatural development in human history. As such, according to Locke, not all men chose to
live within the confines of the natural rights and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At
this stage man entered into a social contract in which a state (government) was formed to
guarantee the rights of the members of society.
Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural
rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security. As such, the purpose of authority is to
protect human equality and freedom; this is why social groups agree to a "social contract" that
places an authority over them. When that authority ceases to care for the welfare, independence,
and equality of individual humans, the social contract is broken and it is the duty of the members
of society to overthrow that ruler.“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” U.S. Declaration of Independence written
on July 4th 1776.
• Definition of the Social Contract: The social contract is the concept that human beings have
made an agreement with their government, whereby the government and the people have distinct
roles and responsibilities. The theory is based on the idea that humans abandoned a natural (free
and ungoverned) condition in favor of a society that provides them with order, structure, and,
very importantly, protection.
Cesare Beccaria
During the eighteenth century, the person most recognized as the precursor of drastic reforms on
penal and legal policies is Cesare Beccaria. Beccaria’s assumptions of human nature were based
on the Enlightenment image of human nature developed for Hobbes and Locke. In fact, the
classical model holds that people do things because they expect to benefit from them in some
way. That is, just about everything that people do is oriented around anticipated pleasures and
benefits either directly or indirectly. Beccaria, a major contributor to the classical school of
criminology, responded to eighteenth-century criminal law, which was repressive, uncertain, and
barbaric.
To Beccaria and other classical thinkers individuals are rational and have free will. That is,
humans are free thinkers and rational decision-makers(People choose what to do by it themselves
by outweighing the “good” and the “bad” of doing something) who choose their own self-
interests by measuring pleasure against pain and choosing the former. Consequently, Beccaria
thought that criminals are rational and hedonistic.
To understand why Beccaria’s essay created such controversy, one need only consider the state
of criminal law in Europe at the time. Eighteenth century criminal law was repressive, uncertain,
and barbaric. It also permitted, as well as encouraged, abusive and arbitrary practices. The law
gave public officials unlimited power to deprive people of their freedom, property, and life with
no regard to principles embodied in the concept “due process of law”:
Secret accusations were in vogue and persons were imprisoned on the flimsiest of evidence.
Torture, ingenious and horrible, was employed to wrench confessions from the recalcitrant.
Judges were permitted to exercise unlimited discretion in punishing those convicted of crime.
The sentences imposed were arbitrary, inconsistent, and depended upon the status and power of
the convicted. . . .A great array of crimes was punished by death not infrequently preceded by
inhuman atrocities. . . . In practice no distinction was made between the accused and the
convicted. Both were detained in the same institution and subjected to the same horrors of
incarceration. This same practice prevailed in regard to the convicted young and old, the
murderer and the bankrupt, first offenders and hardened criminals, men and women. All such
categories of persons were promiscuously thrown together, free to intermingle and interact.
Social Contract Theory

Beccaria based his call for reform on the theory that citizens and the state have a “social
contract” that entitles people to legal protections against crime. Beccaria’s blueprint for reform
had its roots in social contract theory, which stresses the idea that people were originally without
government. People then created the state through a “social contract,” by which they surrendered
many of their “natural liberties.” In return, people received the security that government could
provide “against antisocial acts.”Beccaria wrote, “Laws are the conditions under which
independent and isolated men united to form a society. Weary of living in a continual state of
war, and of enjoying a liberty rendered useless by the uncertainty of preserving it, they sacrificed
a part so that they might enjoy the rest of it in peace and safety. The sum of all these portions of
liberty sacrificed by each for his own good constitutes the sovereignty of a nation, and their
legitimate depository and administrator is the sovereign.”
Pleasure, Pain and Punishment

Pleasure and pain, according to Beccaria, are the only “springs of action,” and the purpose of
punishment is to prevent a criminal from doing any further injury to the community and to
prevent others from committing similar crimes. Beccaria believed that punishment should be
based on the pleasure/pain principle. For him, pleasure and pain were the only “springs of
action” in people who are in possession of their senses: “If an equal punishment be ordained for
two crimes that injure society in different degrees, there is nothing to deter men from committing
the greater [crime] as often as it is attended with greater advantage.”He also believed that
punishment and penalties should be imposed on the guilty according to a scale determined by the
degree of danger the given crime poses for the community: “If mathematical calculation could be
applied to the obscure and infinite combinations of human actions, there might be a
corresponding scale of punishments descending from the greatest to the least.”
What, then, was the purpose of punishment? For Beccaria, its purpose was to prevent a criminal
from doing any further injury to the community or society. The purpose of punishment was also
to prevent others from committing similar crimes. These purposes required setting penalties that
would make strong and lasting impressions on others with the “least torment to the body of the
criminal.”
Punishment should be no more severe than deemed necessary to deter individuals from
committing crimes against others or the state. Maximizing the preventive, or deterrent, effect
would be achieved by prompt, effective, and certain punishment.
After proposing that the rich should be punished in the same way as the poor, and that both
torture to obtain confessions and capital punishment should be abolished, Beccaria concluded:
“So that any punishment be not an act of violence of one or of many against the other, it is
essential that it be public, prompt, necessary, [as] minimal in severity as possible under given
circumstances, proportional to the crime, and prescribed by the laws. With such an exact scale of
crimes and punishments, people would know which penalties were attached to which criminal
acts.
Beccaria’s Proposed Reforms

The following principles summarize Beccaria’s ideas about how to make the criminal justice
system both just and effective (Adapted from Vold et al., 2002).
1. The role of the government should be both to define crimes and also define specific
punishments for each specific crime. This contrasted with the practice of Beccaria’s time when
legislatures passed very general laws and left the implementation up to the vast discretion of the
judges.
2. The role of judges should be solely to determine guilt—whether or not a defendant has
committed a crime. Once that determination is made, then the judge should follow the strict letter
of the law in determining the punishment.
3. The seriousness of a crime should be determined solely by the extent of the harm that it
inflicts on society. Beccaria argued that other factors were irrelevant in determining seriousness,
including the intent of the offender. Beccaria’s specific suggestions for a system of criminal
justice based on the social contract covered the areas of guilt and punishment.
4. Punishments should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and their purpose should
be to deter crime.
5. Punishments are unjust when their severity exceeds what is necessary to achieve deterrence.
6. Excessive severity not only fails to deter crime but actually increases it.
7. Punishments should be prompt—the more prompt punishment follows a crime, the more just
and useful will it be.
8. Punishments should be certain—If you commit a crime, there has to be an absolute certainty
that you are going to be punished for it.
9. Punishments should be severe to maximize their deterrent power.
10. Torture and secret accusations should be abolished.
11. Capital Punishment should be abolished as the state, under the social contract, does not have
the right to take the life of any of its citizens. Beccaria only endorsed capital punishment as a
way to deter crime from occurring.
Even though people had to surrender part of their liberty for protection, Beccaria believed they
would want to give up “the least possible portion”: “The aggregate of these least possible
portions constitutes the right to punish; all that exceeds this is abuse and not justice; it is fact but
by no means right.” Given this view, Beccaria advocated that only legislators should be the
creators of laws. He stated that the authority for “making penal laws can reside only with the
legislator, who represents the whole society united by the social contract.” In addition, unless it
was ordained by the laws, judges were not permitted to inflict punishment on any member of
society. Beccaria also made some important points about being termed “guilty”: “No man can be
called guilty before a judge has sentenced him, nor can society deprive him of public protection
before it has been decided that he has in fact violated the conditions under which such protection
was accorded him. What right is it, then, if not simply that of might, which empowers a judge to
inflict punishment on a citizen while doubt still remains as to his guilt or innocence?” This new
concept, “innocent until proven guilty,” underlies our criminal justice system today. With such
an exact scale of crimes and punishments, people would know which penalties were attached to
which criminal acts.

1.Who founded classical school of criminology ?
2.Define social contract theory?.
Jeremy Bentham
An influential early classical theorist was the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, born in 1748.
Jeremy Bentham supported Beccaria’s ideas. He believed that people have the ability to choose
right from wrong, good from evil. His explanation for criminal behavior included the idea that
people are basically hedonistic, that is, they desire a high degree of pleasure and avoid pain.
People who choose to commit criminal acts think they stand to gain more than they risk losing
by committing the crime. According to Bentham, the value of any pleasure would be determined
by its certainty, duration and intensity. Bentham believed that the criminal justice system should
deter people from making this choice. His ideas became the basis for later deterrence theories.
Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham, a major contributor to the classical school of criminology, based his theories
on the principle of utilitarianism. Bentham’s perspectives on human behavior had its roots in the
concept of utilitarianism, which assumes that all of a person’s actions are calculated. His theory
of utilitarianism asserts that actions and institutions should be judged by their contribution to
utility, which is measured by calculating the relative contribution to happiness or pleasure, as
opposed to pain. The aim of government should thus be “the greatest happiness of the greatest
number.” He believed that law’s purpose is to increase the total happiness of the community.
Laws should indicate specific punishments for specific behaviors in order to motivate people to
act on a certain way. He introduced the notion that different kind of offenses required different
kind of punishments. He rejected the death penalty because it brought more harm than good
according to his principle of utility.
Bentham developed a felicitous calculus, or moral calculus, for estimating the probability that a
person will engage in a particular kind of behavior. People, he believed, weigh the possibility
that a particular behavior pattern or action will cause current or future pleasure against the
possibility that it will cause current or future pain. In response to the question of why a person
commits a crime, Bentham would probably reply that the pleasure that the person anticipated
from the criminal act was much greater than the subsequent pain that might be expected from it.
The Greatest Happiness and Social Control Bentham advocated the “greatest happiness”
principle and the use of punishment to deter crime. Bentham expounded a comprehensive code
of ethics and placed much emphasis on the practical problem of decreasing the crime problem.
He aimed at a system of social control—a method of checking the behavior of people according
to the ethical principle of utilitarianism. He believed that an act should be judged not by an
“irrational system of absolutes but by a supposedly verifiable principle. The principle was that of
‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’ or simply ‘the greatest happiness.’
For Bentham, checks or sanctions needed to be attached to criminal behavior and set up by
legislation, which would then serve “to bring the individual’s pursuit of his own happiness in line
with the best interests of the society as a whole.” Punishment, Bentham believed, was a
necessary evil—necessary to prevent greater evils from being inflicted on the society and thus
diminishing happiness. Social control based on degrees of punishment that both fit the crime and
discourage offending is part of our system of criminal justice today.
Self assessment Question

.1. Define utilitarianism and moral calculus.?
4.3The Positivist School of Criminology

The classical perspective on crime and criminal behavior dominated the thinking and
understanding of crime, law, and justice for almost a century. However, many of the proposals
that the classical theorists made had little effect on the crime problem. In the decades that
followed, statistical improvements in crime measurement began to reflect the existence of certain
patterns in the manifestation of crime. For example, scientific research revealed that crime varied
by age, race, sex, and geographic area; that is, it became obvious that factors far beyond personal
calculation and motivation were involved in the manifestation of crime and criminal behavior.
With the development of various scientific disciplines during the nineteenth century, attention
was drawn away from notions of rationalism and punishment, and toward an investigation of the
causes of crime, stressing in particular the influence of hereditary, psychological, and social
factors.
In the decades that followed the classical theorists, the logic and basic methods of science
evolved and took root in Europe. The philosophical systems of these periods were based on
simple speculative analogies to so-called eternal truths coming from the revered sources of
divine will and tradition.
With the development of the Industrial Revolution, however, the world began to change
radically. Old patterns of social relationships and daily routines changed. The revolution
ultimately brought about an intellectual crisis in Europe. People questioned their old beliefs
about the nature of human existence and society; no longer could they take society for granted.
New answers were needed to the questions, “What is society? How does it change? How can it
be reorganized to meet individual and social needs?”
People also began to question previously relied-on sources of knowledge that answered such
questions. No longer could traditional authority and speculative philosophy explain people’s
present and future life circumstances. Speculative social philosophies gave way to the idea that
society and social change could be studied factually, objectively, and scientifically. Answers to
ancient questions about human nature and human behavior, including deviant and criminal
behavior, began to be offered in terms of objective science and not in terms of religion or
philosophy.
One of the earliest positivist thinkers was the French sociologist Auguste Comte.
Auguste Comte
Auguste Comte was the founder of sociology and positivism. Impressed and inspired by the
revolutionary discoveries in biology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics, the founder of
sociology, Auguste Comte(1798–1857), advocated that human behavior and society should be
studied using methods similar to those used in the physical sciences. Comte encouraged social
scientists to use the perspective of positivism, which emphasizes techniques of observation, the
comparative method, and experimentation in the development of knowledge concerning human
behavior and the nature of society. This approach was different from more traditional speculative
systems of social philosophy.
Positivism emphasizes the techniques of observation, the comparative method, and
experimentation in the development of knowledge concerning human behavior and the nature of
society. Auguste Comte, the founder of sociology and positivism, believed that both external and
internal forces are important for understanding human behavior. The positivist perspective also
stressed the idea that much of our behavior is a function of external social forces beyond
individual control, as well as internal forces such as our mental capabilities and biological
makeup. With the advent of positivism, people were beginning to be perceived and understood as
organisms that are part of the animal kingdom whose behavior is very much influenced (if not
determined) by social, cultural, and biological antecedents, rather than as self-determined beings
who are free to do what they want.
There is great diversity in positivist theories on the causes of crime: some stress external (or
social) factors more, and others stress internal (or individual) factors more. Based on Comte’s
positivism, Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909) and his distinguished pupils Enrico Ferri (1856–
1929) and Raffaele Garofalo (1852–1934) founded positivist criminology—the modern,
positivist school of penal jurisprudence—and led what has been called the Italian school of
criminology.
Cesare Lombroso
In his view on crime, Lombroso called for scientific explanations, focused on internal biological
factors, and believed that people who engage in crime are throwbacks.
Cesare Lombroso was born in Venice, Italy, in 1835. Educated in medicine and psychiatry, he
became a professor of criminal anthropology at the University of Turin in 1906.In his book The
Criminal Man, published in 1876, Lombroso explained criminal behavior on the basis of
biological characteristics and heredity. Using various physiological and cranial measurements of
known criminals, Lombroso developed the theory that certain persons who engage in criminal
behavior are “born criminals.” Lombroso believed that criminals could be distinguished from
non-criminals by a variety of what he termed physical stigmata, such as a long lower jaw,
flattened nose, and long, apelike arms. The stigmata themselves did not cause criminal behavior;
rather they were visible indicators of a personality type that was, in essence, a primitive atavism,
a throwback on the Darwinian scale of human evolution. Lombroso’s approach “suggested that
criminals are distinguished from non-criminals by the manifestation of multiple physical
anomalies, which are of atavistic or degenerative origin. The concept of atavism postulated a
reversion to a primitive or subhuman type of man, characterized physically by a variety of
inferior morphological features reminiscent of apes and lower primates, occurring in the more
simian fossil men and, to some extent, preserved in modern ‘savages.’”
In addition, Lombroso’s theory implied that the “mentality of atavistic individuals is that of
primitive man, that these are biological ‘throwbacks’ to an earlier stage of evolution, and that the
behaviour of these ‘throwbacks’ will inevitably be contrary to the rules and expectations of
modern civilized society.”
Although Lombroso is considered the father of criminology, there are many criticisms of and
misconceptions about his ideas. Many scholars,I ncluding Lombroso’s most ardent advocates,
criticized his methods of research, such as his sources of information, his use of statistics, and
the absence of adequate control groups in his experiments (although he did challenge his
opponents to test his research and ideas by a controlled investigation of criminals and non-
criminals).
Lombroso not only focused on the “born criminal,” atavism, and degeneracy; as a positivist, he
also expressed concern for factors such as the social and physical environment of the offender. In
Crime, Its Causes and Remedies (1899), he reported that economic and political developments
give rise to and physical environment of the offender. In Crime, Its Causes and Remedies (1899),
he reported that economic and political developments give rise to the appearance of
abnormalities that induce social reactions. In discussing socioeconomic factors, he emphasized a
mutual interactive relationship between heredity and environment and, in other written works,
stressed environmental conditions as causing or having an effect on criminality. For example, he
discussed the influences of poverty on crime, the relationship between the cost of food and
crimes against property and person, and the relationship between alcohol and crime.
Lombroso also investigated the etiology (or origins) of crime. He used a wide variety of research
techniques and procedures, ranging from historical and clinical methods to anthropometric and
statistical techniques. These were important strides in the study of crime; nevertheless,
Lombroso’s research methods would not be accepted today as scientific.
Self-assessment Question
1. Briefly state how Lombroso viewed the criminal.
Enrico Ferri
Ferri coined the term “born criminal” and developed a fivefold scientific classification of
criminals. He was born in Mantua, Italy, in 1856. His dissertation, published in 1878, was
entitled Criminal Sociology. He was, for many decades, an acknowledged leader of the positivist
school of criminology. Ferri studied under Lombroso at the University of Turin because of his
belief that, “in order to formulate principles concerning crimes, penalties and criminals, it is first
necessary to study. . .criminals and prisons, since facts should precede theories.”
Ferri first coined the term “born criminal,” to designate Lombroso’s atavistic type of criminal,
and developed one of his basic ideas: a scientific classification of criminals.
Ferri’s classification included the following:

1. The born or instinctive criminal, who carries from birth, through unfortunate heredity from
his progenitors, . . . a reduced resistance to criminal stimuli and also an evident and precocious
propensity to crime.
2. The insane criminal, affected by a clinically identified mental disease or by a
neuropsychopathic condition which groups him with the mentally diseased.
3. The passional criminal, who, in two varieties, the criminal through passion(a prolonged and
chronic mental state), or through emotion (explosive and unexpected mental state), represents a
type at the opposite pole from the criminal due to congenital tendencies.
4. The occasional criminal who constitutes the majority of lawbreakers and is the product of
family and social milieu more than of abnormal personal physiomental conditions
5. The habitual criminal, or rather, the criminal by acquired habit, who is mostly a product of
the social environment in which, due to abandonment by his family, lack of education, poverty,
[and] bad companions. . . ,already in his childhood begins as an occasional offender.
Ferri carefully pointed out that not every criminal would fit into his classification system, nor
would criminals in daily life appear so well defined as the system suggested. Classes of criminals
do not exist in nature, according to Ferri. However, they are a necessary “instrument by which
the human mind can better understand the multiform reality of things.”
Ferri expressed interest in Lombroso’s ideas of the basic biological causation of criminal
behavior, but he stressed the importance and interrelatedness of social, economic, and political
factors as well. In Criminal Sociology, Ferri presented his original thesis on the causes of crime,
which centered on the following factors:
• physical (race, climate, geographic location, seasonal effects, temperature, etc.)
• anthropological (age, sex, somatic [body] conditions, psychological conditions, etc.)
• social (density of populations, customs, religion, organization of government, economic and
industrial conditions, etc.).
For Ferri, the positivist school cultivated a “science of criminality and of a social defence against
it.” This science involved “an individual fact by anthropology, psychology, and criminal
psychopathology; and a social fact (physical and social environmental conditions) by criminal
statistics, monographic studies, and comparative ethnographic studies for the purpose of
systematizing social defence measures (a) of a preventive nature, either indirect or remote
(through ‘penal substitutes’) or direct or proximate (by the police); or (b) of a repressive nature
through criminal law and procedure, techniques of prison treatment and aftercare.” Ferri called
this science criminal sociology.
1.List all of Ferri’s causes of crime.
Raffaele Garofalo
Raffaele Garofalo (1852–1934) was the third of the leading exponents of positivism. Garofalo
was born of Italian nobility in Naples in 1852. He was a professor of criminal law at the
University of Naples and is known principally in the United States for his major work,
Criminology. Garofalo also rejected the doctrine of free will. He believed that crime and criminal
behavior can be understood only by using scientific methods, and that science deals with
universals. He, therefore, developed a sociological definition of crime that was universal and
would “designate those acts which no civilized society can refuse to recognize as criminal and
repress by punishment.” Because he believed it to be inadequate for scientific purposes, Garofalo
rejected the definition of crime as “that conduct for which the law has provided penalties and has
denominated criminal.” He found this “juridical” conception of crime inadequate because it
included as well as excluded behaviors that he thought should be a part of a sociological notion
of crime.
His definition of “natural crime” was “that conduct which offends the basic moral sentiments
of pity (revulsion against the voluntary infliction of suffering on others) and probity (respect for
property rights of others).” Garofalo’s theoretical system holds that “the concept of natural crime
serves the primary end of identifying the true criminal against whom measures of social defence
must be taken. Natural crime is behavior which violates certain basic moral sentiments. The true
criminal is he whose altruistic sensibilities are lacking or are in a deficient state of development.
The concepts of crime and the criminal are thus integrally related.”
Garofalo advanced the concept of psychic or moral anomaly. That is, he believed that the true
criminal is abnormal and “lacks a proper development of the altruistic sensibilities. This lack or
deficiency is not simply the product of circumstance or environmental conditioning but has an
organic basis.” For Garofalo, “[t]here is no such thing as a casual offender.” He believed that this
moral anomaly was “hereditarily transmissible” and “established by unimpeachable evidence.”
Thus, Garofalo believed that congenital and inherited factors are important, and he downplayed
external factors. Making environmental and social factors less important affected his conclusions
regarding crime-prevention measures. For example, Garofalo did not believe that education was
an agent for eliminating crime; in fact, he viewed education as “chiefly determinative of the
kinds of crime committed.” He was also skeptical of economic distress as a cause of crime, but
he stressed the importance of a sound family environment and religious instruction for children
as a crime-prevention measure. Garofalo stated that, without a doubt, “external causes such as
tradition, prejudices, bad examples, climate, alcoholic liquors, and the like are not without
important influence. But in our opinion, there is always present in the instincts of the true
criminal, a specific element which is congenital or inherited, or else acquired in early infancy
and become inseparable from his psychic organism.”
Garofalo developed a classification of four criminal types or classes, based on the concept of
moral anomaly. Even though they are distinct from one another, they are related in the sense that
each type is characterized by “a deficiency in the basic altruistic sentiments of pity and probity.”
Garofalo’s four classes of criminals are
The murderer is the man in whom altruism is wholly lacking. The sentiments of both pity and
probity are absent, and such a criminal will steal or kill as the occasion arises.. . . Lesser
offenders fall into two major groups: violent criminals, characterized by the lack of pity, and
thieves, indicated by a lack of probity . . . such offenses are committed by a small minority of the
population.. . .The violent criminal may also commit crimes of passion, sometimes under the
influence of alcohol. . .such crimes...are indicative of inferior innate moral capacities.. . .Certain
environments. . . contribute to crimes against property. . .[such as] two or three evil companions..
. .Nevertheless, many manifestations of such behavior can only be attributed to “a remote
atavism” and in other cases to a general deficiency in “moral activity.”. . . Lascivious criminals .
. . [are] a group of sexual offenders . . . whose conduct is characterized less by the absence of the
sentiment of pity than by a low level of moral energy and deficient moral perception.
Garofalo’s concepts of crime and criminals provide a base for his “social defense” against
criminality. For Garofalo, because of the “absence or deficiency of the basic altruistic
sentiments,” the criminal demonstrates his “unfitness” or “lack of adaptation” to his social
environment: “Elimination from the social circle is thus the penalty indicated.” This emphasis on
elimination results in “a theory of penalties or treatment which makes incapacitation of the
criminal the consideration of central importance.” Deterrence of potential offenders and
reformation of offenders are of secondary importance. Incapacitation through death or
imprisonment or “transportation”(banishment to penal colonies) was the key to eliminating
criminals from society. Garofalo presents three means of elimination:
1. Death, for those whose acts grow out of a “permanent psychologic anomaly which renders the
subject forever incapable of social life”
2. Partial elimination, including long-time or life imprisonment and transportation for those “fit
only for the life of nomadic hordes or primitive tribes,” as well as the relatively mild isolation of
agricultural colonies for young and more hopeful offenders
3. Enforced reparation for those lacking in altruistic sentiments who have committed their crimes
under exceptional circumstances not likely to occur again.
Garofalo believed that his theory of punishment met three conditions needed to make it “an
effective instrument of public policy”: it satisfied the deep-seated public demand for punishment
of the offender simply because he committed a crime; its general principle of elimination was
sufficiently intimidating to contribute to deterrence; and the social selection resulting from its
operation offered hope for the future by slow eradication of the criminals and their progeny.
Comte, Lombroso, Ferri, and Garofalo reflect the diversity of positivist views in their various
emphases on internal or external causes of criminal behavior.
Self assessment Question
1.List Garofalo’s classes of criminals.
.
4.4 Summary: This chapter discusses many of the early theoretical explanations for criminal
behavior. Early scholarly explanations for crime came from a wide variety of fields.
Criminologists have traditionally marked the beginning of their discipline with the establishment
of Cesare Beccaria’s and Jeremy Bentham’s classical school of criminology, which purports that
people rationally choose to commit criminal acts. Crime occurs when the benefits outweigh the
costs—when people pursue self-interest in the absence of effective punishments. Crime is a free-
willed choice. The positivist school of criminology, founded by Auguste Comte, purports that
behavior is determined by measurable factors beyond human control, a principle developed
further in the theoretical contributions of Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, and Raffaele Garofalo .
Crime is caused or determined. Lombroso placed more emphasis on biological deficiencies,
whereas later scholars would emphasize psychological and sociological factors. Use science to
determine the factors associated with crime.
The Classical School advocated a definite penalty for each crime. The punishment must fit the
crime, e.g., for armed robbery a man would receive five years in prison. The Classical School
punished the man for the crime, for what he had done. The Positive School rejected the doctrine
of no punishment without a law. The Positive School emphasized individualized treatment and
the protection of society against the criminal. The punishment must fit the criminal. A man was
sentenced, not according to the seriousness of the offense, but according to the factor or factors
which motivated him to commit a crime. It is foolish, reasoned the positivist, to sentence all men
guilty of armed robbery to the same length of time, since the motivational pattern for each man
would be different. One man might commit armed robbery because he does not have the
vocational training necessary for him to get a job; another man might commit armed robbery
because it served him as a psychological substitute for love which he did not receive from his
parents. Whereas the Classical School focused attention on the crime, the Positive School shifted
the emphasis to the criminal. The major characteristic of criminological thinking since
Lombroso's time is the preoccupation of criminologists with the problem "why do individuals
commit crimes?"
All of these theories from the past have formed a foundation for modern criminology and related
fields.

Leonard Glick(2005) Criminology . Allyn & Bacon/Longman,New York.
Einstadter, Werner, and Stuart Henry, (1995) Criminological Theory: An Analysis of Its
Underlying Assumptions, Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace College.
4.6 Model question

Discuss classical and positivistic approaches of criminology.
Lesson - 5
Biological theories of crime
Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 History of biological theories
5.3 Franz Joseph Gall: Phrenology
5.4 Cesare Lombroso: Atavism
5.5 Twin Studies
5.6 Adoption Studies
5.7 Criminal Families
5.8 Ernest A. Hooten
5.9 William H. Sheldon

5.10 Chromosome Theory
5.11 Biochemical Factors and Imbalances
5.12 Heredity and Other Physical Factors
5.13 Summary
5.15 Model Question
5.0 Objectives
 Describe the origins of the biological school of criminology;
 List the basic assumptions on which biological theory is based;
 Discuss the views of various thinkers who gave importance to biological factors.
5.1 Introduction
Biological theories in criminology deal with evolutionary and genetic influences on criminal
behaviour. These theories attribute human and societal change to genes that are passed on from
generation to generation. Biological theories refer to the effect of congenital (inherited physical)
traits on human behavior. They hold the view that some people are “naturally born criminals”
with physical qualities that govern their deviant tendencies. Biological theories of crime are built
on inherited or bodily characteristics and features. They have certain fundamental assumptions.
Among them are these:
■ Basic determinants of human behavior, including criminal tendencies, are constitutionally or
genetically based.
■ The basic determinants of human behavior, including criminality, may be passed on from
generation to generation.
■ At least some human behavior is the result of biological propensities inherited from more
primitive developmental stages in the evolutionary process. Some human beings may be further
along the evolutionary ladder than others, and their behavior may reflect it.
5.2 History of biological theories:
There were two main scientific breakthroughs that initiated research into the biological
components of both the individual and society: Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species,
and Gregor Mendel’s discovery of genetically inheritable traits.
Darwin’s book, first published in 1859, included his theory of evolution and natural selection. He
held a belief that living things could arise from non-living things. Darwin’s theory hypothesized
that animal species were continuously modified by a process of “natural selection”, where those
best suited to their environment would be able to reproduce more successfully than others.
Gregor Mendel’s work in genetics was the next significant finding that contributed to biological
theory. Through breeding pea plants with different characteristics and tracking their presence in
future generations, Mendel (1866) essentially defined the concept of genetically inherited traits.
This inspired further biological study and later led to various theories around the cause of deviant
behaviour. As these scientific findings spread, social scientists began to base criminological
theories around biological factors.
The first systematic efforts to identify biological causes of crime were made as part of the
broader science of phrenology, an approach to understanding human behavior that is usually
traced back to the work of Franz Joseph Gall (d. 1828), an Austrian physician. According to
Gall and other phrenologists, each of our mental abilities is located in a separate part of the brain
and functions independently, in relative isolation from the others. One of the brain’s “faculties”
or “organs” can be normal, while another lies dormant or atrophies.
5.3 Franz Joseph Gall: Phrenology
Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828) was one of the first thinkers to theorize about the idea that bodily
constitution might reflect personality. Gall was writing at a time when it was thought that organs
throughout the body determined one’s mental state and behavior. People were said to be “hard-
hearted” or to have a “bad spleen” that filled them with bile. Franz Gall systematically promoted
his theory that the brain is the source of all personality, including deviant personality. Gall
focused on the head and the brain and called his approach cranioscopy. It can be summarized in
four propositions:
■ The brain is the organ of the mind.
■ The brain consists of localized faculties or functions.
■ The shape of the skull reveals the underlying development (or lack of development) of areas
within the brain.
■ The personality can be revealed by a study of the skull.
Phrenology is the study of the shape of the head to determine anatomical correlates of human
behavior. Lumps, bumps, indentations, protuberances, and other cranial features were considered
by phrenologists to be indicators of brain development. Phrenology treated criminality as a
mental illness. They supported the belief that criminals, because sick, are not responsible for
their behavior, a belief that became the basis for the legal defense of insanity. Additionally,
phrenology provided a biological explanation for crime. Gall’s student, Johann Gaspar
Spurzheim (1776–1853), brought phrenology to America where it was used in some diagnostic
schemes to classify new prisoners.
Self –assessment Questions
1.Name Charles Darwin’s famous book?
2. Define Phrenology?
5.4 Cesare Lombroso: Atavism

Cesare Lombroso began his criminal anthropology with a postmortem evaluation of famous
criminals, including one by the name of Vilella. Before Vilella died, Lombroso had the
opportunity to interview him on a number of occasions. After Vilella’s death, Lombroso
correlated earlier observations of personality traits with measurable physical abnormalities. As a
result of this and other studies, Lombroso concluded that criminals were atavistic human beings.
Atavism is a condition characterized by the existence of features thought to be common in earlier
stages of human evolution.
Through examination and biopsy of inmates’ skulls and bodies Lombroso believed to have
indentified distinctive physical features that made it possible to distinguish the criminal man
from ordinary men. Lombroso identified the following traits as evidence of atavism:
• Bent noses
• High cheekbones
• Lack of earlobes
• Prominent lips
• Elongated arms
• Jutting jaws
Since Lombroso’s conclusions were observational, he recognized that not all criminals exhibited
these physical features. He theorized that biology and life experiences can combine to “trigger”
criminality in some people.
Lombroso expanded his theory on crime to account for different types of criminals. He added to
the “born criminal”, the “insane criminal”, the “hysterical criminal” and the “occasional
criminal” among other categories. He also provided explanations of crime and ideas for
prevention. Lombroso included children in his study, and found the same physical
“abnormalities” among the child offenders as he had found with the adult criminals. Lombroso
thought that all children were born immoral but children could be “educated”, in the sense that
living with honest people would overcome their criminal tendencies. This only accounted for a
part of the children, others were born criminals and not susceptible to reform and these should be
prevented born by prohibiting physical relations between alcoholics and offenders.
5.5 Twin Studies

To discover whether or not crime is genetically predetermined, researchers have compared
identical and fraternal twins. Identical, or monozygotic (MZ), twins develop from a single
fertilized egg that divides into two embryos. These twins share all their genes. Fraternal, or
dizygotic (DZ), twins develop from two separate eggs, both fertilized at the same time. They
share about half of their genes. Since the prenatal and postnatal family environments are, by and
large, the same, greater behavioural similarity between identical twins than between fraternal
twins would support an argument for genetic predisposition.
In the 1920s, a German physician, Johannes Lange, found 30 pairs of same-sex twins—13
identical and 17 fraternal pairs. One member of each pair was a known criminal. Lange found
that in 10 of the 13 pairs of identical twins, both twins were criminal; in 2 of the 17 pairs of
fraternal twins, both were criminal.
 What do you know about Atavism?
 Who conducted study on Twins to understand criminal Behaviour?
5.6 Adoption Studies

Adoption studies help us to expand our knowledge of genetic influences on human variation. The
largest adoption study conducted so far was based on a sample of 14, 427 male and female
adoptions in Denmark between 1924 and 1947. The hypothesis was that criminality in the
biological parents would be associated with an increased risk of criminal behaviour in the child.
The parents were considered criminal if either the mother or the father had been convicted of a
crime. The researchers had sufficient information on more than 4000 of the male children to
assess whether or not both the biological and the adoptive parents had criminal records. Mednick
and his associates reported the following findings:
• Of boys whose adoptive and biological parents had no criminal record, 13.5 percent were
convicted of crimes.
• Of boys who had criminal adoptive parents and non-criminal biological parents, 14.7 percent
were convicted of crimes.
• Of boys who had non-criminal adoptive parents and criminal biological parents, 20 percent
• Of boys who had both criminal adoptive parents and criminal biological parents,24.5 percent
These findings support the claim that the criminality of the biological parents has more influence
on the child than does that of the adoptive parents. Other research on adopted children has
reached similar conclusions. A major Swedish study examined 862 adopted males and 913
adopted females.
The researchers found a genetic predisposition to criminality in both sexes, but an even stronger
one in females. Results of adoption studies have been characterized as “highly suggestive” or
“supportive” of a genetic link to criminality.
5.7 Criminal Families
The concept of biological inheritance has been applied to “criminal families” as well as to
individuals.
The idea of mental degeneration as an inherited contributor to crime was first explored by
Richard Dugdale. Dugdale used the family tree method to study a family he called the Jukes,
publishing his findings in 1877. The Juke lineage had its beginning in America with “Max”
(whose last name is unknown), a descendant of Dutch immigrants to New Amsterdam in the
early eighteenth century. Two of Max’s sons married into the notorious “Juke family of girls,”
six sisters, all of whom were illegitimate. Male Jukes were reputed to have been “vicious,” while
Ada, one of the sisters, had an especially bad reputation and eventually came to be known as “the
mother of criminals.”
Dugdale found that, during the next 75 years, Ada’s heirs included 1,200 people, most of whom
were “social degenerates.” Only a handful of socially productive progeny could be identified.
In 1915, Dugdale’s study of the Jukes was continued by Arthur A. Estabrook, who extended the
line to include 2,094 descendants and found just as few conformists.
A similar study was published by Henry Goddard in 1912. Goddard examined the Kallikak
family, which contained two clear lines of descent. One emanated from an affair that
Revolutionary War soldier Martin Kallikak had with a “feebleminded” barmaid. She bore a son,
and the line eventually produced 480 identifiable descendants. After the war, Kallikak returned
home and married a “virtuous” Quaker woman in Philadelphia. This legitimate line produced
496 offspring by 1912, of whom only three were abnormal; not one was criminal. The
illegitimate group, however, contained over half “feebleminded” or deviant progeny.
The underlying suppositions of these studies are that degenerate and feebleminded people are
produced and propagated through bad genetic material, and that crime is an outlet for degenerate
urges. However, these studies fail to recognize any effect that socialization and life
circumstances have on the development of criminal behavior.
5.8 Ernest A. Hooten
Ernest A. Hooten in Crime and the Man (1939), examined the anthropological characteristics of
criminals by race and ethnicity. Hooten believed in Cesar Lombroso’s theory of the born
criminal, which held that criminals could be identified by their physical characteristics. Hooten
felt that although there was general agreement concerning the physical attributes which
differentiate races, there was no consensus concerning the implications of biological
characteristics on other facets of the person, such as personality or propensity for deviance.
Hooten measured the physical characteristics of 13,873 criminals from ten states in United States
of America (which included Massachusetts, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, North Carolina,
Wisconsin, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona) and compared them to a control
sample of 3,203 non-criminals from Massachusetts, Tennessee, and North Carolina in order to
make clear any differences between the two groups all adult-male groups . His measurements
included such physical characteristics as weight, height, head length, nose height, and ear length.
Countless other measurements (107 in total) were taken from each subject including age,
religion, education, offense committed, marital status, I.Q., eye color, moles, tattooing, and race
Measuring physical traits like skull size and the length of nose bridge, Hooten found small but
significant differences on the majority of these features. He concluded that the criminal
population was inferior, without specifying what was implied with inferior or how it was
measured. Hooten study was comprehensive and well financed, but has been heavily critiqued
afterward. He was also criticized for arguing for a “pure racial type”
5.9 William H. Sheldon
Inspired by Hooton, in the 1940s Harvard psychologist William H. Sheldon launched the field of
“constitutional psychology,” an attempt to correlate criminal tendencies with body
types. Sheldon (1949) advanced a theory that a share with Lombroso’s the idea that criminal
behaviour is linked to a person’s physical form. Sheldon distinguished between three basic types
of bodily build: ectomorph (thin), endomorph (fat) and mesomorph (muscular).
• Mesomorphs: People who are muscular, sinewy, narrow in waist and hips, and broad-
shouldered
• Ectomorphs: People who are fragile, thin, narrow, and delicate
• Endomorphs: People who are pudgy, round, soft, short-limbed, and smooth-skinned
Sheldon believed that bodily build was linked to personality and temperament so ectomorphs
were solitary and restrained, endomorphs relaxed and hedonistic and mesomorphs energetic and
adventurous. Pure somatotypes are rare, and most people represent a blending of different types.
Sheldon’s principle claim was that mesomorphs are more prone to criminal activity than the
other two types. Consequently his theory predicts that there should be a relationship between
how mesomorphic a person is and their degree of criminality. Sheldon assessed the somatotypes
of samples of college students and delinquents from photographs. Each photo was rated for
mesomorphy on a scale from 1 (low) to 7 (high). It emerged that the delinquents had a higher
mean mesomorphy rating than the college students (4.6 vs. 3.8), supporting Sheldon’s claims
about the link between body type and criminality.
5.10 Chromosome Theory Chromosomes are the basic structures that contain our genes—the
biological material that makes each of us unique. Each human being has 23 pairs of inherited
chromosomes. One pair determines gender. A female receives an X chromosome from both
mother and father; a male receives an X chromosome from his mother and a Y from his father.
Sometimes a defect in the production of sperm or egg results in genetic abnormalities. One type
of abnormality is the XYY chromosomal male. The XYY male receives two Y chromosomes
from his father rather than one. Approximately 1 in 1000 newborn males in the general
population has this genetic composition.
Initial studies done in the 1960s found the frequency of XYY chromosomes to be about 20 times
greater than normal XY chromosomes among inmates in maximum-security hospitals. The XYY
inmates tended to be tall, physically aggressive, and, frequently, violent. Some theorists
speculated that an additional Y chromosome might ‘hyper masculine’ men who had it. Since
men are more aggressive than women, it might be that men who have XYY chromosomes might
be more aggressive than other men and hence more likely to commit violent crimes.
Self-assessment Questions
1.What is the main idea behind Adoption studies?
2.Who carried out study on criminal families?
3.Mention personality types as mentioned by Sheldon?
5.11 Biochemical Factors and Imbalances

Research in the area of nutrition has produced some limited evidence that the old maxim “You
are what you eat!” may contain more than a grain of truth. Biocriminology is a field of study that
links violent or disruptive behavior to eating habits, vitamin deficiencies, genetics, and other
conditions that affect body tissues.
One of the first studies to focus on chemical imbalances in the body as a cause of crime was
reported in the British medical journal Lancet in 1943. Authors of the study linked murder to
hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), which is caused by too much insulin in the blood or by near
starvation diets. Some researchers believe that hypoglycemia reduces the mind’s capacity to
reason effectively or to judge the long-term consequences of behavior.
Allergic reactions to common foods have been reported as the cause of violence and homicide in
a number of studies. Foods said to produce allergic reactions in sensitive individuals, leading to a
swelling of the brain and brain stem. Involvement of the central nervous system in such allergies,
it has been suggested, reduces the amount of learning that occurs during childhood and may
contribute to delinquency as well as to adult criminal behavior. Some studies have implicated
food additives, such as monosodium glutamate, dyes, and artificial flavorings, in producing
criminal behavior.
Other researchers have suggested that high blood levels of caffeine and sugar produce antisocial
behavior. On the other hand, Mortimer Gross of the University of Illinois shows no link between
the amount of sugar consumed and hyperactivity. Similarly, studies “have not yielded evidence
that a change in diet will result in [a] significant reduction in aggressive or antisocial behavior”
among population in prison.
Vitamins have also been examined for their impact on delinquency. Abram Hoffer found that
disruptive children consumed far less than the optimum levels of vitamins B3 and B6 than did
non-problem youths. He claimed that the addition of these vitamins to the diets of children who
were deficient in them could control unruly behavior and improve school performance. Overall,
the role of food and diet in producing criminal behavior has not been well established.
5.12 Heredity and Other Physical Factors
Hereditary explanations of causation hold that criminality in some families is hereditary, and that
deviance is genetically encoded in those born into the family group. Thus, a bad seed is
theoretically inherited and passed from generation to generation. Richard Dugdale’s research on
the Juke family, published in 1877, was among the first scientific studies that systematically
argued in favor of a genetic basis for immorality, crime, and delinquency
Other physical factors have been shown to play a role in an individual’s inclination toward
criminality. Sarnoff Mednick, for example, found that the autonomic nervous system (ANS)
predisposes certain individuals toward criminality by limiting their ability to learn quickly. He
claims that those with a slow ANS are unable to inhibit antisocial behavior quickly enough to
avoid punishment and stigmatization. Physical trauma, especially brain injury, has also been
shown to at times induce severe personality changes, including aggression and violent behavior
in people. Similarly, people born with certain abnormalities of the brain, especially frontal lobe
dysfunction, may display a strong or habitual liking for violence.
5.13 Summary
Early biological theories view criminal behavior as the result of a defect in the individual. This
defect can be biological or genetic in nature, and serves to separate the criminal from the law
abiding citizen. Contemporary biological theories concentrate more on variations in genetic and
other biological factors in interaction with the environment, and are less likely to refer to
biological defects or abnormalities.
More modern biological theories seek to establish a link between things like IQ, testosterone, and
criminality. While they share a biological link, modern theories understand that the influences of
choice and the larger society also play a role in the crime dynamic.

Einstadter, Werner and Stuart Henry, (1995) Criminological Theory: An Analysis of Its
Underlying Assumptions. Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace College.
Leonard Glick(2005) Criminology. Allyn & Bacon/Longman
Nicole Rafter (2008) The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of
Crime .NYU.Press.
Wilson, James Q., and Richard J. Herrnstein(1985) Crime and Human Nature, New York: Simon
and Schuster.
5.15 Model question
Discuss Biological approaches of criminology.
Lesson - 6
Psychological theories of crime
Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Psychoanalytic Theory: Personality, Behavior, and Childhood
6.3 Conditioning Theory: Learning by Experiencing
6.4 Psychopathology Theory

6.5 Summary
6.7 Model Question
6.0 Objectives
 Identify the contributions of psychology to the understanding of criminal behavior
 Explain the relationship between personality and criminal behavior
 understand the importance of psychoanalytical theory to an understanding of criminality
 Understand the psychopathological approach to criminal behavior
6.1 Introduction
Theories of the Psychological School of crime causation have an increasingly significant place
in the criminological literature. Most psychological theories of crime make certain fundamental
assumptions.
Among them are these:
 The individual is the primary unit of analysis.
 Personality is the major motivational element within individuals, since it is the source of
drives and motives.
 Crimes result from inappropriately conditioned behavior or from abnormal,
dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality.
 Defective or abnormal mental processes may have a variety of causes, including a
diseased mind and inappropriate learning or improper conditioning—often occurring in
early childhood.
The psychological theories of delinquency and criminality can be divided under three main
headings:
 Psychoanalytic Theory
 Conditioning Theory
 Psychopathology Theory
6.2 Psychoanalytic Theory: Personality, Behavior, and Childhood
Early theorists of psychoanalysis, such as Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, attempted to construct
systematic models to explain human personality.
6.2.1 Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the founder of psychoanalysis, suggested that an
individual’s psychological well-being is dependent on a healthy interaction among the id, ego,
and superego—the three basic components of the human psyche.
The id consists of powerful urges and drives for gratification and satisfaction.
The ego is the executive of the personality, acting as a moderator between the superego and id.
The superego acts as a moral code or conscience.
Freud proposed that criminality may result from an overactive superego or conscience. In
general, deviance is viewed as the product of an uncontrollable id, a faulty ego, or an
underdeveloped superego or some combination of the three. Therefore, those who commit a
criminal or delinquent act do so as the result of a personality disturbance.
In treating patients, he noticed that those who were suffering from unbearable guilt committed
crimes in order to be apprehended and punished. Sigmund Freud‘s influential theory about the
development of personality provides a different explanation for criminal acts. Freud
hypothesized that the three sets of forces:
 The selfish, irrational ones,
 The rational forces, and
 The moralistic ones…
are always struggling for control of behavior. He believed that the criminal suffers from a
compulsive need for punishment to alleviate the guilt feelings. One of the reasons that
psychoanalytic theory has had such an influence is its comprehensiveness as a description of the
nature and processes of human personality. In spite of criticism, three basic principles still appeal
to the psychologists who study criminality are:
1. The actions and behavior of an adult are understood in terms of childhood development.
2. Behavior and unconscious motives are intertwined, and their interaction must be
unraveled if we are to understand criminality.
3. Criminality is essentially a representation of psychological conflict.
Self assessment question
Explain Sigmund Freud’s concept of Id?
6.2.2 Eysenck’s personality theory of offending

Hans Eysenck (1964) forwarded a theory of criminal behaviour based on his influential theory of
personality he had earlier devised and which he continued to develop throughout his career. He
suggested that within everyone is a conscience, or “inner guiding light” that keeps one from
committing crime. The person who does not develop conditioned moral and social responses (or
a conscience, which is a result of low ability to be conditioned and extraversion) will be more
likely to engage in criminal or deviant activities Conscience is related to functions of the
autonomic nervous system, which is made up of glands and involuntary muscles (i.e., blinking).
The body can be conditioned to exhibit certain autonomic responses to external stimuli, as well
as internal cognitive processes such as anxiety and fear.
Once an individual has been conditioned to know that certain unacceptable behaviors will be
punished, predictable and involuntary physiological reactions will take place. That is why a
deterrence explanation of criminal behavior is inaccurate, according to Eysenck. Crime is not
always detected, nor does it always merit punishment. Therefore, the deterrents that keep
individuals from committing crime must be the autonomic reactions. This fear/anxiety reaction
actually takes place even before a crime is committed. At the time a criminal act is contemplated,
there is an immediate and unpleasant reaction in an individual who has a conditioned conscience.
The closer one gets to actually committing the act, the greater the unpleasant reaction becomes.
This process will deter crime long before the judicial system or any other social institution ever
becomes aware of the action.
Eysenck saw biology as the primary basis for personality traits. The main tenet of his theory is
that an optimal level of cortical arousal (stimulation of the cortex within the brain) is within each
person. Behavior or physical performance tends to deteriorate when arousal is increased or
decreased beyond this optimal level.
Extroverts were people who were poorly conditioned, but who were also outgoing and talkative
due to their need for external stimulation to keep their arousal levels optimal and their
performance maximized. On the other hand, introverts were quiet and reserved due to excessive
arousal. A quiet environment would bring the introvert back to a level of optimal performance.
Neurotic individuals were unable to control their emotions and were easily upset. This person
was more likely to experience anxiety and depression. The opposite was the stable person who
was able to maintain calm in stressful situations. Psychotics referred to individuals with higher
levels of testosterone in the body who were seen not only as people who were emotionally
unstable, but as people who were more likely to become violent or aggressive. The characteristic
behavior of the psychotic individual would include aggression, impulsiveness, non-conformity,
and hostility.
Eysenck theorized that psychoticism was always related to crime. A psychotic criminal would
be someone who is impulsive, acts without thinking, and may also lack the ability to empathize
with others. Low cortical arousal is related to both extraversion and psychoticism in that both are
marked by poor arousal and therefore cause individuals to act out in an effort to attain greater
arousal. Specifically, he theorized that individuals with low cortical arousal seek out arousing
and often risky activities that may include criminal acts.
Eysenck stated that criminals know right from wrong, but prefer the wrong to the right. He also
explained the reason why some commit crimes and others do not is a matter of conscience.
Specifically, he theorized that individuals learn behaviors through operant and classical
conditioning. That is, the child who is punished repeatedly for an antisocial act and does not
develop the appropriate response (i.e., fear of repeated punishment) will not learn from this
punishment and correct behavior in the future by developing a moral conscience (Eysenck,
1983). The likelihood of developing a moral conscience is dependent on a number of factors,
including whether conditioning experiences are missing, whether the wrong experiences are
reinforced, and whether the person has low cortical arousal. He conceded that the learning
process or the breakdown of this process, contributes to the likelihood of criminal behavior.
6.2.3 Samuel Yochelson & Stanton E. Samenow
Yochelson & Samenow through The Criminal Personality theory challenged the sociological
schools of thought and brought to the forefront a very different picture of the criminal and
explanations for why an individual commits crime. Yochelson and Samenow on the basis of their
sixteen-year research project, discovered the causes of crime, and perhaps solutions to diminish
it. Following a comprehensive look into the criminal mind and criminal thinking patterns,
Yochelson & Samenow focused upon thinking patterns of the drug-using criminals.
Criminality does not pertain to arrestability; it pertains to how a person acts, thinks and lives
their lives. The following, according to Yochelson & Samenow, are common to all criminals:
 The criminal is very fearful;
 The criminal must cut off both internal and external deterrents in order to commit crime;
 The criminal is a predator who pursues power and control;
 The criminal demands to be identified as the “unique number one person” in all that he does,
having never learned to fully function independent of others;
 The criminal feels “put down” and becomes angry when he does not get his own way,
making him more relentless in pursuit of his goals using stealth or force to accomplish them;
and,
 Except in the planning of a crime, the criminal fails to think long range.
Yochelson and Samenow rejected environmental explanations of criminality, such as a
broken home or unemployment. They claimed ―criminals are criminals—people become
criminals as a result of a series of choices they start making at an early age. It is these
patterns that result in criminality. Crime is like alcoholism: ―Once a criminal always a
criminal. They reported that the criminals were very much in control of their actions, rather
than being ―sick. These criminals were portrayed as master manipulators who try to assign
the blame for their own behavior to others. They were such inveterate liars that they could no
longer separate fact from fiction. They used words to control and manipulate, not to represent
reality.
6.3 Conditioning Theory: Learning by Experiencing
The pioneer behind conditioning theory is Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist who conducted
behavioral experiments on dogs during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The basic
attributes of his experiments were stimulus–response and reward–punishment. His laboratory
dogs were stimulated to respond with certain behaviors. Pavlov’s methods were remarkably
simple: The dogs were rewarded when they responded correctly, and punished when the
responded incorrectly.
According to this school, environmental stimuli operate either as punishers or reinforcers.
Criminals and delinquents are stimulated (reinforced) by their environment to continue acting out
deviantly until they are punished in some manner. Therefore, when offenders are repeatedly
rewarded for their deviance and receive no punishment for breaking the law, they are likely to
continue until the authorities catch them.
6.3.1 Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychologist who provided valuable insight into the moral development of
individuals. His works helped to explain why people chose to do the things they did.
Kohlberg’s writings and research go beyond the study of criminology, but the implications and
applications of his works are very important in understanding the criminal.He argued that
personality is developed in the context of social interactions
Kohlberg used Piaget’s work on the development of moral judgment in children. He
postulated six stages that divided into three major levels.
Preconventional is usually seen in children up to age nine, sometimes in adolescents, and in
adolescent and criminal offenders. These individuals have not yet come to really understand or
uphold rules and expectations.
Conventional is the level of most adolescents and adults in our and other societies. These
individuals uphold the rules, laws, and expectations of society solely on the fact that they are
society’s rules and are expected to do so.
Postconventional or autonomous, is only attained only by a minority of adults and is usually
reached only after age 20. These individuals accept and understand the rules of society, but
acceptance of these rules and expectations is based on formulating and accepting the general
moral principles that underlie these rules and expectations (right to life, right to property,
upholding social contracts). If conflict occurs between their moral principles and with society’s
rules, these individuals will adhere to the principle rather than the rule.
Each level of moral thinking is further explained by the two stages within each:
Preconvetional Level
Stage 1: The Punishment and Obedience Orientation – The physical consequences of
behavior determines good or bad acts, regardless of the human meaning or value of these
consequences (Kohlberg, 1981 p. 17). Individuals tend to think about right and wrong in a
childish, immature way. Essentially, the right thing to do is obey authority figures in order to
avoid punishment, or be rewarded. At the heart of this stage is the lack of understanding of
another’s feelings, and that others have needs like themselves. Most adolescents and adults
develop beyond this stage. It has been argued that repeat offenders are functioning at this stage.
This could explain why offenders seem unfeeling or indifferent about their victims.
Stage 2: The Instrumental Relativist Orientation – Right action consists of that which
instrumentally satisfies one’s needs and occasionally the needs of others – reciprocity (Kohlberg,
1981 p. 17). Individuals think of right or wrong based on what is best for them, a self-centered
approach, different from stage 1 with these individuals having an understanding that others have
feelings, and that their actions can have an impact on others. When you combine these two
elements (self centeredness and impact on others), depending on their moral development, one
may find a manipulative individual. To get what one wants, an individual in this stage may even
accept some type of punishment to get what they want.
Conventional Level
Stage 3: The Interpersonal Concordance or “Good Boy – Nice Girl” Orientation – Good
behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by the (recipient). One in this
stage is a conformist, with the added judgment “he means well,” thereby earning the approval of
others by being “nice” (Kohlberg, 1981 p.18). Those in this stage are concerned about what
others think of them. Right behavior means those actions that get others to like and admire one,
to obtain social approval by others. In this stage, since the individual seeks the approval of
others, they are apt to peer pressure. Although this stage is generally attributed to adolescents,
Kohlberg found that many adults do not grow out of it.
Stage 4: Society Maintaining Orientation – There is an orientation towards authority, fixed
rules, and the maintenance of social order. Right behavior consists of doing one’s duty, showing
respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake (Kohlberg, 1981 p.
18). Individuals seem to understand that the world is bigger than them (or group) and they are
part of that larger community and have obligations to it. Involvement in the group helps to
maintain social order. Obeying laws and being a good citizen are attributed to this stage because
they believe moral behavior is the same as legal behavior. Individuals base their desire to act not
for what they receive, but how their actions enable the overall community. These individuals
could be categorized as prudently obeying the rules.
Postconventional Level
Stage 5: The Social Contract Orientation – There is a clear awareness of the relativism of
personal values and opinions and corresponding emphasis on procedural rules for reaching
consensus (Kohlberg, 1981 p. 18). Ethical thinking is fundamentally based on strong moral
values, principles, and beliefs in one’s society. They know that those in authority are not always
moral and that some laws and rules may not always have to be obeyed. Those in this stage will
question the rules and challenge authority because they may see conflict when certain acts of the
establishment seem unfair and go against justice and the respect of others. Kohlberg described
this stage as the “official morality of the United States.” He believed it was the foundation for
American democracy and government, pointing out that the premise of the Declaration of
Independence and Constitution is for citizens to oversee and challenge government.
Stage 6: The Universal Ethical Principle Orientation – This stage entails the universal
principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and of respect for the
dignity of human beings as individuals (Kohlberg, 1981 p. 19). These individuals realize there
are universal principles and rules that apply to everyone. This realization gives them the ability
to rise above the values and beliefs of their societies while trying to pull the society along with
them. The actions of Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King exemplify those in this stage.
Since Kohlberg believed his theory went beyond the cultural boundaries of his initial studies in
the US, he included and compared analysis of their research form Turkey, Latin America, Israel,
and Taiwan, surmising there is consistency in the theory across geographical and cultural
boundaries.
Mention stages at Preconvetional Level.
6.4 Psychopathology Theory

The concept of the psychopathic personality was developed during the 1950s to describe
criminals who behaved cruelly and seemingly with no empathy for their victims.
From a psychiatric point of view, crime might also occur because of a diseased mind or a
disordered personality—conditions that may collectively be referred to as psychopathy.
Psychopaths (sociopaths) are considered to be people who have no conscience. They are severely
dysfunctional in their relationships with other people, and are fundamentally selfish,
unpredictable, untruthful, and unstable. The term is sometimes used to describe very aggressive
delinquents and criminals who act out spontaneously without an observable motive. This
aggressiveness and impulsiveness are typical manifestations of the psychopathic personality,
which is why many become lawbreakers.
In 1944, for example, the well known psychiatrist David Abrahamsen wrote, “When we seek to
explain the riddle of human conduct in general and of antisocial behavior in particular, the
solution must be sought in the personality.” Later, some psychiatrists went so far as to claim that
criminal behavior itself is only a symptom of a more fundamental psychiatric disorder.
By the 1930s, psychiatrists had begun to develop the concept of a psychopathic personality. This
personality type, which by its very definition is asocial, was fully developed by Hervey Cleckley
in his 1941 book, The Mask of Sanity. He posed 16 criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy,
considering psychopaths mainly as disguised mentally ill individuals. According to Cleckley,
psychopaths appear to enjoy excellent mental health; but what we see is only a “mask of sanity.”
Initially, they seem free of any kind of mental disorder and appear to be reliable and honest.
After some time, however, it becomes clear that they have no sense of responsibility whatsoever.
They show a disregard for truth; are insincere; and feel no sense of shame, guilt, or humiliation.
Psychopaths lie and cheat without hesitation and engage in verbal as well as physical abuse
without any thought. It seems that individuals with antisocial personality disorder do not learn
from negative experiences, largely because they seem incapable of experiencing anxiety in the
manner most of us do. They lack a sense of fear in terms of negative consequences for
inappropriate behaviour. While as children most of us may have feared our parents’ disapproval
for misbehaving, the same thought process does not appear in psychopaths.
Psychopathic individuals can be found in every manifestation of life, among business people,
lawyers and academics. They exist in all lines of work, from executive to blue-collar professions.
According to Cleckley, psychopathic indicators appear early in life, often in the teenage years.
They include lying, fighting, stealing, and vandalism. While the terms psychopath and criminal
are not synonymous, individuals manifesting characteristics of a psychopathic personality are
likely, sooner or later, to disobey the law.
Psychopaths understand right from wrong. They know they are subject to society’s rules, but
willingly disregard them to pursue their own interests. They also are not out of touch with reality.
They rarely become psychotic unless they also have a separate mental illness or use powerful
drugs, such as stimulants. The reactions of psychopaths to the damage they inflict most likely
will be cool indifference and a sense of power, pleasure, or smug satisfaction, rather than regret
or concern. Many psychopaths exhibit a profound lack of remorse for their aggressive actions,
both violent and nonviolent, along with a corresponding lack of empathy for their victims. This
central psychopathic concept enables them to act in a cold-blooded manner, using those around
them as pawns to achieve goals and satisfy needs and desires, whether sexual, financial, physical,
or emotional.
Some psychiatrists consider “psychopathy” to be an artificial label for an antisocial personality.
To Eysenck, Hare, and others, it is a major behavioural category that presents significant
challenges. Eysenck sums up this view by writing that the psychopath poses the riddle of
delinquency. If we could solve the riddle, then we would have a powerful weapon to fight the
problem of delinquency.
6.5Summary
Most psychological theories of crime causation make certain fundamental assumptions. Among
them are
 The individual is the primary unit of analysis.
 Personality is the major motivational element within individuals, because it is the seat of
drives and the source of motives.
 Crimes result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within
the personality.
 Criminal behavior, while condemned by the social group, may be purposeful for the
individual insofar as it addresses certain felt needs. Behavior can be judged
"inappropriate" only when measured against external criteria purporting to establish
normality.
 Normality is generally defined by social consensus—that is, what the majority of people
in any social group agree is "real," appropriate, or typical.
Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a variety of causes, including
 A diseased mind.
 Inappropriate learning or improper conditioning.
 The emulation of inappropriate role models.
 Adjustment to inner conflicts.

Einstadter, Werner, and Stuart Henry, (1995) Criminological Theory: An Analysis of Its
Underlying Assumptions, Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace College.
Feldman, P (1993). The psychology of crime. Cambridge University Press
Leonard Glick(2005) Criminology. Allyn & Bacon/Longman.
6.7 Model questions
1. What are some psychological explanations for criminal behaviours?
2. Is a psychological explanation for criminality valid?
Lesson – 7
Sociological theories of crime
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Structural Functionalists
7.3 Conflict Perspective
7.4 Symbolic Interactionist Perspective
7.5 Summary
7.7 Model question
7.0 Objectives
After reading this lesson you will be able to
 Understand sociological theories of criminal behavior
 identify the contributions of Sociology to the understanding of criminal behavior.
7.1 Introduction
Sociologists attribute criminality to the social conditions of the criminal. Crime- causation
depends considerably on social interactions. At times persons violate the provisions of law
knowing well that they will have to face penal consequences for their acts. This phenomenon is
more conspicuous in times of political strategy. For example in the freedom struggle of India
Mahatma Gandhi and other national leaders broke the laws made by the English and were
imprisoned. Similarly, cases of hunger strikes, demonstrations of protests, self-immolations all
are glaring instances of deliberate law violations by responsible persons of the society.
Sociological perspectives on crime causation are quite diverse. Most, however, build on certain
fundamental assumptions. Among them are these:
• Socioeconomic conditions and pressures shape individual and collective behavior.
• The structure of society and the relative degree of social organization or social
disorganization are important factors contributing to the prevalence of criminal behavior.
• Inequality and deprivation are associated with criminality.
• Sub cultural norms are often at odds with accepted norms of society, creating tensions that
can result in sub cultural conflict with the greater society.
• Crime is associated with underclass conditions such as poverty, neighborhood degeneration,
low educational achievement, inadequate housing, and family dysfunction.
7.2 Structural Functionalists

They maintain that criminality is the result of structural defects in the society or family etc.
Structural defects here mean the general breakdown of normal social conditions. These
explanations emphasize on the existence of fundamental inequality in the structure of the society.
Inequalities are experienced in the opportunities to achieve the goals valued by the society. In the
society, all people have aspirations or goals to be wealthy, successful, educated, hope to possess
material possessions such as nice clothes, cars, bungalows, all luxuries. But not everybody is
having the opportunities. Some have greater opportunities, for instance, being from affluent
families have greater chances to get good education.
Some may have greater abilities to achieve their goals. People with good looks are more likely to
achieve goals through legitimate means. Some others, who have lesser opportunities and cannot
attain their thorough legitimate means, may face a compulsion to rely on illegal means.
7.2.1 Emile Durkheim

In his works, which included The Division of Labor in Society (1893) and Suicide (1897),
Durkheim insisted on the primacy of groups and social organizations as explanatory factors of
human misconduct. He viewed crime as a normal phenomenon in society because group
reactions to deviant actions assist human groups in defining their moral boundaries. According to
Durkheim, deviance can serve a number of functions for society. First, it helps enhance
conformity in society as a whole. Norms are basically abstract and ambiguous, subject to
conflicting interpretations.
Even criminal laws, which are far more clear-cut than other norms, can be confusing. The
criminal act that a deviant commits and is punished for provides other citizens with a concrete
example of what constitutes a crime. From deviants we can learn the difference between
conformity and deviance, seeing the boundary between right and wrong more clearly. Once
aware of this boundary, we are more likely to stay on the side of rightness.
Second, deviance strengthens solidarity among law abiding members of society. Differing values
and interests may divide them, but collective outrage against deviants as a common enemy can
unite them, as it did Americans in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Because deviance promotes social cohesion that decreases crime, Durkheim (1915) described it
as “a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies.”Third, deviance provides a
safety valve for discontented people. Through relatively minor forms of deviance, they can strike
out against the social order without doing serious harm to themselves or others.
Prostitution, for example, may serve as a safety valve for marriage in a male-dominated society
because the customer is unlikely to form an emotional attachment to the prostitute. In contrast, a
sexual relationship with a friend is more likely to develop into a love affair that could destroy the
marriage.
Fourth, deviance can induce social change. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders
were jeered and imprisoned for their opposition to segregation, but they moved the United States
toward greater racial equality. There is a limit, however, to the validity of Durkheim’s
functionalist theory. If deviance is widespread, it can threaten social order in at least two ways.
First, it can wreck interpersonal relations. Alcoholism tears apart many families. If a friend flies
into a rage and tries to kill us, it will be difficult to maintain a harmonious relationship. Second,
deviance can undermine trust. If there were many killers, robbers, and rapists living in our
neighborhoods, we would find it impossible to welcome neighbors into our home as guests or
babysitters.
Nevertheless, Durkheim’s theory is useful for demolishing the commonsense belief that deviance
is always harmful. Deviance can bring benefits if it occurs within limits.
Durkheim viewed anomie in modern societies as produced by individual aspirations and
ambitions and the search for new pleasures and sensations that are beyond achievement even in
times of prosperity. Durkheim concluded that after social upheavals such as wars, traditional
norms of behavior no longer work, thus causing societal normlessness. Suicide, crime, and other
crises exist in societies that do not develop effective norms. Anomie refers to a broad breakdown
of norms in society, or a disconnection between an individual from the norms of his or her
society’s contemporary values. Durkheim’s theories have had great influence on sociology,
continuing well into the modern era.
Define Anomie ?
7.2.2 Merton: Strain Theory

In the 1930s, U.S. sociologist Robert Merton agreed with Durkheim that deviance is “an integral
part of all healthy societies.” Merton drew on Durkheim’s concept of anomie to develop a theory
of deviance that later became well known among sociologists for a long time as anomie theory.
Literally meaning “normlessness,” anomie is a social condition in which norms are absent,
weak, or in conflict. Anomie may arise, said Merton, when there is an inconsistency in society
between the cultural goals and the institutionalized (socially approved, legitimate) means of
achieving the goals. Merton’s theory of anomie first appeared in 1938 in an article titled “Social
Structure and Anomie.” Merton viewed anomie as a condition that occurs when discrepancies
exist between societal goals and the means available for their achievement. This discrepancy or
strain between aspirations and achievement has resulted in Merton’s conception being referred to
as strain theory.
Merton’s theory focused on the availability of goals and means. He posited that the most of the
societies encourage its members to use acceptable means to achieve acceptable goals.
“Acceptable means” include hard work, prudent savings, and higher education. Acceptable goals
include comfort, leisure time, social status, and wealth. However, not all members of society
have an equal availability of resources to achieve society’s recognized goals, thus creating strain
for these less empowered members. Strain is manifested as a desire to achieve these goals, and
one’s inability to acquire the legitimate means to attain them. In theory, those who do not have
access to acceptable means may resort to illegitimate and illicit avenues to achieve their goals
such as committing a robbery or selling drugs. In other words, those without resources and
access may become delinquents or criminals to achieve comfort, leisure, status, and wealth.
Thus, according to Merton’s theory of anomie, antisocial behavior (crime) is produced by the
very values of the society itself in encouraging high material aspirations as a sign of individual
success without adequately providing approved means for all to reach these goals. This
discrepancy between goals and means (strain) produces various “modes of personality
adaptation,” different combinations of behavior in accepting or rejecting the means and goals.
Given this high premium placed on individual success without concomitant provision of
adequate means for its achievement, individuals may seek alternate (non approved) means of
accomplishing this goal.
In addition to innovation, four other responses are possible, depending on whether the cultural
goal of success and the institutionalized means are accepted or rejected
1. Conformity, the most popular form of response, involves accepting both the cultural goal of
success and the use of legitimate means for achieving that goal. The conformist accepts the goal
of success in society and also the socially approved means of achieving this status, such as
through hard work, education, deferred gratification, and the like. Acceptance of the goals does
not indicate that all actually achieve such satisfactory ends, but that they have faith in the system.
2. Innovation, the response described earlier, involves accepting the goal of success but rejecting
the use of socially accepted means to achieve it, turning instead to unconventional, illegitimate
methods. The innovator accepts the goal of success, but rejects or seeks illegitimate alternatives
to the means of achieving these aims. Criminal activities such as theft and organized crime could
serve as examples, although socially encouraged activities such as inventing could also provide
illustrations.
3. Ritualism occurs when people no longer set high success goals but continue to toil as
conscientious, diligent workers. The ritualist is illustrated by the “mindless bureaucrat” who
becomes so caught up in rules and means to an end that he or she tends to forget or fails to place
proper significance on the goal. This individual will compulsively persist in going through the
motions with little hope of successful achievement of goals.
4. Retreatism is withdrawal from society, caring neither about success nor about working. The
retreatist represents a rejection of both societally approved means and ends Retreatists include
vagabonds, outcasts, and drug addicts. Chronic alcoholics and drug addicts may eventually reject
societal standards of jobs and success and choose the goal of “getting high” by means of
begging, borrowing, or stealing.
5. Rebellion occurs when people reject and attempt to change both the goals and the means
approved by society. The rebel tries to overthrow the existing system and establish a new system
with different goals and means. The rebel rejects both means and goals and seeks to substitute
alternative ones that would represent new societal goals as well as new methods of achieving
them, such as through revolutionary activities aimed at introducing change in the existing order
outside normal, societal approved channels. An example would be attempting to replace the
current U.S. competitive pursuit of fame and riches with a new system that enhances social
relations through cooperation.
In short, Merton’s theory blames deviance on society’s failure to provide all people with
legitimate means to achieve success. The theory is useful for explaining the higher rates of
robbery, theft, and other property crimes among lower-class people, who are pressured to
commit such crimes by their lack of good jobs and other legitimate means for success. But the
theory fails to explain embezzlement, tax fraud, and other white-collar crimes because the people
who commit such offenses are typically not deprived of the legitimate means for success, as the
lower classes are. As a functionalist, Merton assumes that the same value—belief in material
success—is shared throughout society. But this assumption runs counter to the pluralistic and
conflicting nature of U.S. society, where many groups differentiated by class, gender, ethnicity,
or religion do not share the same values. Some groups, for example, are more interested in
pursuing strong relationships than in “big bucks.”
.Name various categories mentioned by Merton to explain his theory of deviance?
7.2.3 Ecological theory

Another type of structural theory of crime is the ecological theory, which focuses on the
criminal's relationship to the social environment. These theories emphasize migration and
urbanization as sources of criminal adaptation and attempt to explain the geographic distribution
of crime and criminals. Ecological theories often give special emphasis to urban areas.
In the 1940s American researchers Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay found that delinquent
offenders clustered in certain neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois. This clustering persisted over
time–even when the ethnic composition of the neighborhood changed dramatically. Shaw and
McKay adapted the concentric zones to the study of crime when they realized that the zones
nearest the center of the city had the highest crime rates. Shaw and McKay theorized that as
people migrated from rural locations or from other nations into urban centers, their poverty
forced them into districts that were on the fringe of industrial zones. These fringe areas, or areas
of first settlement, were characterized by high levels of social disorganization–that is, the
residents of these areas rarely interacted or communicated with each other.
Shaw and McKay also found the lack of communication in such areas was in part the result of
the diversity of language and culture among immigrant groups, as well as the fact that people
moved on after a short time. Thus it was difficult to form enduring relationships and to negotiate
an agreed-upon code of behavior. Furthermore, because informal social control was weak and
people did not share common norms, crime rates and arrests were high. When people left these
areas their risk of engaging in or being the victim of criminal activity dropped. Others moved
into these disorganized areas experienced increased involvement in criminal activity.
Social ecology research generally describes prevalent physical and social structures that affect
the quality of life in American cities. These studies commonly report the following urban
“ecological” factors:
• Explanations for deviance must take social structures into account.
• Delinquency and crime rates in urban areas vary markedly in identified neighborhoods and
other designated concentric zones.
• Rates of delinquency and crime are highest in urban core zones—the inner city—and lowest
outside of these cores.
• Other problems common to the underclass also exist in inner-city neighborhoods and other
designated zones.
Social ecology theory has been criticized for overreliance on social structures to explain
delinquency and crime. According to critics, other factors such as anomie or in-migration of
criminally inclined people (who drive out law-abiding residents) can also explain deviance.
Nevertheless, research on social ecology is likely to continue to be conducted and refined.
7.2.4 Hirschi: Control Theory
A functionalist like Merton, U.S. sociologist Travis Hirschi (1969) assumed that the family,
school, and other social institutions can greatly contribute to social order by controlling deviant
tendencies in all of us. If such control is lacking or weak, in Hirschi’s view, people will commit
deviant acts. Individuals conform not for fear of prescribed punishments in the criminal law, but
rather from concern with violating their groups’ mores and the personal image of them held by
those groups. These bonds to society consist of four components: attachment, commitment,
involvement, and belief.
Attachment refers to a bond to others (such as family and peers) and important institutions (such
as churches and schools). Weak attachment to parents and family may impair personality
development, while poor relationships with the school are viewed as particularly instrumental in
delinquency.
Commitment involves the degree to which an individual maintains a vested interest in the social
and economic system. If an individual has much to lose in terms of status, job, and community
standing, he or she is less likely to violate the law. Adults, for instance, have many more such
commitments than do juveniles.
Involvement entails engagement in legitimate social and recreational activities that either leaves
too little time to get into trouble or binds one’s status to yet other important groups whose esteem
one wishes to maintain.
Finally, belief in the conventional norms and value system and the law acts as a bond to society.
Like
According to Hirschi, the best control mechanism against deviance is our bond to others or, by
extension, society. He proposed four types of social bond:
1. Attachment to conventional people and institutions.
Teenagers, for example, may show this attachment by loving and respecting their parents,
making friends with conventional peers, liking school, or working hard to develop intellectual
skills.
2. Commitment to conformity. This commitment can be seen in the time and energy devoted to
conventional activities—getting an education, holding a job, developing an occupational skill,
improving professional status, building a business, or acquiring a reputation for virtue.
3. Involvement in conventional activities. Following the maxim that “Idleness is the devil’s
workshop,” people keep themselves so busy doing conventional things that they do not have time
to take part in deviant activities or even to think about deviance.
4. Belief in the moral validity of social rules. This is the conviction that the rules of conventional
society should be obeyed. People show this moral belief by respecting the law.
If society fails to strengthen these four types of social bond, deviance is likely to flourish. Using
self-reports of delinquency from high school students in California, Hirschi concluded that
youngsters who were less attached to teachers and parents and who had few positive attitudes
about their own accomplishments were more likely to engage in crime and deviance than were
others.
Mention various types of bonds as discussed by Hirschi?
.
7.2.5 Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime

As a successor to his social bond theory, Hirschi joined with Michael Gottfredson in proposing
another theory. Combining elements of classical, positivistic, and social control theories,
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990; Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990) claim to have developed a “general
theory of crime.” This general theory is that “low self-control” in the pursuit of “self-interest”
causes crime. Deficiencies in parenting distinguish those who express this trait, who express
themselves in greater deviance and criminality, from those who do not. Those with high self-
control would be less likely to become involved in such activity. Surprisingly, Hirschi and
Gottfredson also claim that this same “self-control” theory explains white collar crime and that
the causes of white collar crime are not distinct from the causes of other crimes .
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) view crime as a hedonistic event. They assert that everyone has
the same motivation to commit crime regardless of their social situation or the existence of laws
and sanctions designed to govern the acceptability of behavior. Gottfredson and Hirschi
developed a theory of crime that focuses on a single determinant or cause. The determinant or
cause of behavior,according to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) is the existence of low self
control. Low self control is an enduring characteristic developed early in life that determines
behavior. Individuals with low self control tend to need immediate gratification, seek out
exciting or thrilling situations, and have very little control over their own behavior. Criminal acts
provide the excitement and gratification to satisfy their needs.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) delineate a number of propositions to explain how self control
can explain criminal behavior over time. First, low self control is established very early in life
and cannot be altered. The causes of low self control, however, do not fall on the individual,
rather, from the absence of nurturance and discipline from families. They place the blame for this
development on the parents’ inability to socialize the child correctly. They mention a number of
factors that may inhibit the child’s socialization, including: inadequate punishments, parental
criminality, family size, and mothers who work outside of the home.
Second, the theory includes six components to explain behavior. Low self control involves a
“here and now” orientation in that the individual does not consider future consequences.
Individuals with low self-control seek simple and gratifying tasks. The individuals are
adventuresome and enjoy thrilling situations. These individuals are more likely to embrace
physical rather than mental tasks. Individuals low in self-control tends to be selfish and self-
centered in their needs and desires. And finally, these individuals appear to have a very low
frustration tolerance and are more likely to become angered by these events.
Third, individuals with low self-control are likely to commit crime or analogous behaviors
throughout their lifespan. They assert “these differences remain reasonably stable with change in
the social location of individuals and change in their knowledge of the operation of the sanction
system” (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). In other words, low self-control remains stable over
time regardless of environmental changes or changes in the laws or punishments.
And finally, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that age is not important in the explanation of
crime, but that the fluctuations in opportunity explain increases and decreases in criminal
behavior. Interestingly, the authors do not claim that low self-control is by itself the primary
reason for crime. Rather, individuals with low self-control are unable to resist the opportunity to
commit crimes. Hence, the condition (i.e. low self-control) interacts with the opportunity to
increase the likelihood of the criminal act. More important, however, is the assertion that when
opportunity for crime decreases, as the offender ages, an individual with low self-control is likely
to engage in analogous behaviors that are problematic but not necessarily criminal. Analogous
behaviors may include, smoking, gambling, drinking and driving, and/or sexual promiscuity.
Glaser (1990) notes that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime is “usefully comple-
mented, and not contradicted, by differential association, deviant subculture, and social learning
theories. These theories explain why socially disorganized neighborhoods provide the greatest
opportunities, social support, and learned rationalizations for persons to express low self control
in street felonies”
Why is the social control theory of Gottfredson and Hirschi considered a general theory?
7.3 CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE:

We have seen how Structure-functionalists describe the functions of deviance and attribute crime
to such dysfunctions of society as anomie, weak social bonds, and disintegrative shaming. Now,
we will look at how conflict theorists regard social conflict—in the form of inequalities or power
differentials—as the cause of crime. Marxist approach to crime is based on conflict
theory. Unlike the functionalist approach, it does not assume there is consensus over a common
core of norms and values.
Marxism sees deviance in terms of a critique of capitalist society. It questions who defines what
crime is and who makes the law. The basis of the argument is that the ruling class, or capitalist
class, exploits the working class because power is held by those who own, and control the means
of production in society. The superstructure reflects the relationship between the powerful and
the relatively powerless.
The agencies of social control, the law and definitions of deviance reflect and serve ruling class
interests. The law is a tool of the capitalist ruling class, and the state uses the law to support their
own class interests while exploiting and controlling the working class. The law is capitalist law
and favors the capitalist system. Even where laws appear to be designed to protect the consumer
(anti-pollution laws, unfair contract terms, health & safety), these laws are, in fact, shaped by the
ruling class to promote their own interests while giving the impression that they protect the
working class.
Marxists argue that the capitalist economic system generates crime as:
1. The economic system is the major influence upon social relationships and values.
Capitalism stresses maximization of profits and wealth.
2. Economic self-interest rather than public duty motivates behaviour.
3. Personal gain rather than collective well-being is encouraged.
4. Capitalism is a competitive system. Mutual aid and cooperation for the betterment of all
are discouraged in favour of individual achievement at the expense of others.
Competition breeds aggression, hostility and frustration on the part of losers.
7.3.1 William Chambliss theory of Political Economy of Crime
William Chambliss (1976) argues that greed and self-interest motivate many crimes at all levels
in society. Capitalist societies, where the means of production are in private hands and there is a
division between the class that rules (the owners of the means of production) and the class that is
ruled (those who work for the ruling class), creates substantial amounts of crime. It is often the
violent in nature. It is a result of the contradictions that are inherent in the Structure of social
relations that emanate from the capitalist system.
The first contradiction is that the capitalist enterprise depends upon creating in the mass of the
workers a desire for the consumption of products produced by the system. These products need
not contribute to the well being of the people, nor do they have to represent commodities of any
intrinsic value; nonetheless, for the system to expand and be viable, it is essential that the bulk of
the population be oriented to consuming what is produced. However, in order to produce the
commodities that are the basis for the accumulation of capital and the maintenance of the ruling
class, it is also necessary to get people to work at tedious, alienating and unrewarding tasks. One
way to achieve this, of course, is to make the accumulation of commodities dependent on work.
Moreover, since the system depends as it does on the desire to possess and consume
commodities far beyond what is necessary for survival, there must be an added incentive to
perform the dull meaningless tasks that are required to keep the productive process expanding.
This is accomplished by keeping a proportion of the labor force impoverished or nearly so. If
those who are employed become obstreperous and refuse to perform the tasks required by the
productive system, then there is a reserve labor force waiting to take their job. And hanging over
the heads of the workers is always the possibility of becoming impoverished should they refuse
to do their job. Thus, at the outset the structure of capitalism creates both the desire to consume
and for a large mass of people an inability to earn the money necessary to purchase the items
they have been taught to want.
A second fundamental contradiction derives from the fact that the division of a society into a
ruling class that owns the means of production and a subservient class that works for wages
inevitably leads to conflict between the two classes. As those conflicts are manifest in rebellions
and riots among the proletariat, the state, acting in the interests of the owners of the means of
production will pass laws designed to control, through the application of state sanctioned force,
those acts of the proletariat which threaten the interests of the bourgeoisie. In this way, then, acts
come to be defined as criminal.
It follows that as capitalism develops and conflicts between social classes continue or become
more frequent or more violent (as a result, for example, of increasing proletarianization), more
and more acts will be defined as criminal.
The criminal law is thus not a reflection of custom (as other theorists have argued), but is a set of
rules laid down by the state in the interests of the ruling class, and resulting from the conflicts
that inhere in class structured societies; criminal behavior is, then, the inevitable expression of
class conflict resulting from the inherently exploitative nature of the economic relations.
What makes the behavior of some criminal is the coercive power of the state to enforce the will
of the ruling class; criminal behavior results from the struggle between classes whereby those
who are the subservient classes individually express their alienation from established social
relations. Criminal behavior is a product of the economic and political system, and in a capitalist
society has as one of its principal consequences the advancement of technology, use of surplus
labor and generally the maintenance of the established relationship between the social classes.
The following propositions highlight the most important implications of a Marxian paradigm of
crime and criminal law.
A. On the content and operation of criminal law
1. Acts are defined as criminal because it is in the interests of the ruling class to so define them.
2. Members of the ruling class will be able to violate the laws with impunity while members of
the subject classes will be punished.
3. As capitalist societies industrialize and the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat
widens, penal law will expand in an effort to coerce the proletariat into submission.
B. On the consequences of crime for society
1. Crime reduces surplus labor by creating employment not only for the criminals but for law
enforcers, locksmiths; welfare workers, professors of criminology and a horde of people who
live off of the fact that crime exists.
2. Crime diverts the lower classes' attention from the exploitation they experience, and directs it
toward other members of their own class rather than towards the capitalist class or the economic
system.
3. Crime is a reality which exists only as it is created by those in the society whose interests are
served by its presence.
C. On the etiology of criminal behavior
1. Criminal and non-criminal behavior stem from people acting rationally in ways that are
compatible with their class position. Crime is a reaction to the life conditions of a person's social
class.
2. Crime varies from society to society depending on the political and economic structures of
society.
3. Socialist societies should have much lower rates of crime because the less intense class
struggle should reduce the forces leading to and the functions of crime.
To understand crime, Chambliss argued, we need to look at the law in action, at how legal
authorities actually discharge their duties. After studying the law in action, Chambliss concluded
that legal authorities are actually unfair and unjust, favoring the rich and powerful over the poor
and weak and consequently creating more criminals among the latter. Richard Quinney (1974)
blamed unjust law directly on the capitalist system. “Criminal law,” said Quinney, “is used by
the state and the ruling class to secure the survival of the capitalist system.” This involves the
dominant class’s doing four things.
First, the dominant class defines as criminal those behaviors (robbery, murder, and the like) that
threaten its interests.
Second, it hires law enforcers to apply those definitions and protect its interests.
Third, it exploits the subordinate class by paying low wages so that the resulting oppressive life
conditions virtually force the powerless to commit what those in power have defined as crimes.
Fourth, it uses these criminal actions to spread and reinforce the popular view that the
subordinate class is dangerous in order to justify its concerns with making and enforcing the law.
To Marxists, the capitalists’ ceaseless drive to increase profits by cutting labor costs has created
a large class of unemployed workers. These people become a marginal surplus population who
are useless to the economy and they are compelled to commit property crimes to survive.
Marxists argue that the exploitive nature of capitalism also causes violent crimes (such as murder
and assault) and noncriminal deviance (such as alcoholism and mental illness).
Conflict theory is useful for explaining why most laws favor the wealthy and powerful and why
the poor and powerless commit most of the unprofitable crimes in society (such as murder,
assault, and robbery).The theory is also useful for explaining why crime rates began to soar after
the communist countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe turned to capitalism.
But the theory has been criticized for implying that all laws are unjust and that capitalism is the
source of all crimes.
Discuss the relationship between Capitalism and Crime?
7.4 SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE

Both the functionalist and conflict perspectives portray crime as a product of society. In contrast,
symbolic Interactionists see crime as a process of interaction between the supposed criminal and
the rest of society. This process of interaction involves association, societal reaction, and
subjective interpretations that shape the world of crime.
Symbolic interactionism, rooted in the work of George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer.
According to this perspective, Criminal activity, like any other behavior, is learned through
interaction. Thus, criminals are likely to have been involved in deviant subcultures or groups that
encouraged rule-breaking and criminal activity. Involvement in “deviant” groups teaches people
that crime is okay and teaches us the skills to engage in it. Crime is also promoted through
comparison with others around us – if those around us (reference groups) have wealth and
material goods that we don’t have, we might be encouraged to engage in criminal behavior in
order to obtain these things. Interactionists also ask who makes the rules about criminal behavior
– why are some acts of deviance defined as crimes and thus punished, while others are not. If
crime is learned, Interactionists argue, it follows that it can be un-learned. Thus, Interactionists
offer a host of proposals that strongly discourage criminal behavior. They focus on the role of
social learning in crime prevention and reduction.

According to Edwin Sutherland (1939), deviance is learned through interactions with other
people. Individuals learn not only how to perform deviant acts but also how to define these
actions. Various social groups have different norms; acts considered deviant by the dominant
culture may be viewed positively by some groups. Each person is likely to be exposed to both
positive and negative definitions of these actions.
An individual is likely to become deviant if the individual engages in differential association, the
process of acquiring, through association with others, “an excess of definitions favorable to
violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law”. Sutherland brought his theory
of differential association into the process by explaining how criminal behavior is learned
through intimate interactions with others in an environment where deviancy exists.
The theory of differential association explains crime as a natural consequence of the interaction
with criminal lifestyles. Sutherland suggested that children raised in crime-prone environments
were often isolated and unable to experience the values that would otherwise lead to conformity.
Differential association as described by Sutherland is based on the notion that modern society
contains conflicting structures of norms and behaviours. It also contains conflicting definitions of
appropriate behaviour that give rise to crime. Normative conflict at the individual level is
translated into individual acts of delinquency through differential association learned through
communication usually in intimate groups. In other words peer pressure and peer attitudes
influence behaviour. Contact with persons who have favourable definitions toward crime, leads
to an individual learning similar definitions. Sutherland also maintained that the family is a
crucial variable in understanding delinquency: "Those homes with extremely rigid discipline,
extremely lax discipline, or inconsistent discipline are developing many children with
personalities that are socially undesirable and incline toward delinquency". According to
Sutherland, criminal behavior, like noncriminal behavior, is learned in interaction with other
people: "A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation
of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law”. Sutherland also strongly emphasized
culture in his analysis of crime, arguing that society consisted of a number of diverse groups with
varied cultures. Underlying the phenomenon of criminal behavior is the principle of culture
conflict, which leads to differential association, which in turn leads to criminal behavior.
The nine propositions of the differential association theory are (Sutherland,1947,pp.6-7):
• Criminal behavior is learned. In this proposition, Sutherland emphasized his belief that criminal
behavior is not inherited. Nor did he believe that a person who has not been trained in criminal
behavior invents that behavior. It must be learned.
• Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
That process involves gestures as well as verbal interactions.
• The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
Sutherland did not believe that the media play an important role in the process. His approach
should be understood in the context of pre-television times.
• When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes: (a) techniques of committing the
crime, which are sometimes very simple, and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives,
rationalizations, and attitudes.
• The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as
favorable or unfavorable. Sutherland pointed out that in American society the definitions of legal
codes are mixed: Some favor violating those codes, while others support compliance. The
mixture creates cultural conflict with respect to legal codes.
• A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law
over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This statement is Sutherland’s principle of
differential association. Those who engage in criminal behavior do so because they have contacts
with that type of behavior and are isolated from anticriminal behavior.
• Differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. This statement
is a crucial one in Sutherland’s theory, and it means that associations with criminal and
noncriminal behavior vary in terms of those four elements. Sutherland stated that the first two,
frequency and duration, did not need to be defined; their meaning is obvious. He suggested that
priority is important in that behavior learned early in life might persist for a long time, but that is
not always the case. In his view, “priority seems to be important principally principally through
its selective influence.” Finally, intensity “has to do with such things as the prestige of the source
of a criminal or anti-criminal pattern and with emotional reactions related to the associations.”
Sutherland acknowledged that it would be difficult to develop a precise formula to measure all of
these four modalities.
• The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti criminal
patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. To Sutherland,
the same learning theory that explains noncriminal behavior explains criminal behavior.
• While criminal behavior is an explanation of general needs and values, it is not explained by
those general needs and values since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs
and values. To Sutherland, the attempt to explain criminal behavior in terms of a person’s needs
or desires was as futile as trying to explain the behavior in terms of respiration: Breathing (like a
need or desire) does not distinguish criminal from noncriminal behavior, although it is necessary
for both.
Differential association theory is not directed at the issue of the origin of crime in society, but
concentrates instead on the transmission of criminal attitudes and behavior. It is a behaviourist
theory—“previous behavior causes subsequent behavior”—and contains elements of a “soft
social determinism,” that is, exposure to groups does not cause but predisposes individuals to
criminal activity or causes them to view it more favorably. Why, then, do not all with similar
exposure become similarly criminal? Sutherland’s notion of variations in contacts provides for
individual reaction to social groups and exposures.
A Critique of Differential Association
Because it is a general theory of criminality and is relatively compatible with many other
criminological explanations of crime, differential association theory enjoyed widespread
acceptance in the field. It was not, however, without critics. Donald Cressey, Sutherland’s
coauthor, explains that since Sutherland’s principal propositions are presented in only two pages
in his textbook, the theory is often misinterpreted by some critics, most notably Vold (1958, p.
194). Among these claimed errors of interpretation, Cressey (Sutherland & Cressey, 1974, pp.
78–80) mentions the following:
 The theory is concerned only with contacts or associations with criminal or delinquent
behavior patterns. (It actually refers to both criminal and noncriminal behavior, as
demonstrated by the use of terms such as “differential” and “excess” of contacts.)
 The theory says persons become criminals because of an excess of associations with
criminals. • (It actually says that criminal attitudes can be learned from the unintentional
transmission of such values by non-criminals.)
 Using the 1939 version of the theory, critics believe the theory refers to “systematic
criminals.” • (This has been modified since the 1947 version to refer to all criminal
behavior.)
 The theory fails to explain why persons have the associations they have. (It does not
pretend to do so.)
Cressey (1960) also addresses other criticisms that he feels are misinterpretations; however, a
number of shortcomings have been identified:
 While Sutherland traces the roots of criminality to culture conflict and social
disorganization, a comprehensive theory of criminality should provide more explanation
of the origin of crime.
 Since it is a general theory, it is difficult to either empirically prove or disprove it by
means of research, and reformulations are necessary in order to permit testing.
 The theory fails to account for all forms of criminality.
 The theory fails to acknowledge the importance of non-face-to-face contacts such as
media influences
Despite these and other criticisms, differential association remains important as a useful general
theory of criminality even though it may fail to specify the process for each individual case of
criminality. The theory of differential association remains one of the most cited theories in
modern criminology and will probably remain so until a more acceptable general theory of
criminality appears.
1.State the elements of differential association.
2.Discuss the impact of Edwin H. Sutherland on criminology?

The main basis of labeling theory of crime is the social context of that behaviour. For labeling
theorists, therefore, the "causes of crime" are to be found not in the qualities possessed by
"deviants and criminals" but, rather, in the patterns of social interaction that exist in any social
group, institution or society.
In this respect, crime and deviance can only be understood - as social. Although "crime" is an
objective social category, but we measure it by reference to the existence of law (if you break the
law then you are technically a criminal), the idea of "criminality" is rather-more of a subjective
category - mainly because it is dependent upon the social reaction to the behaviour of the "law-
breaker". Although people break laws all the time, only a certain proportion of all law-breakers
are ever identified and labeled as criminals.
For labeling theorists, therefore, understanding criminality involves a dual process, namely:
Behaviour and the Social Reaction to that behaviour. It is because of this subjective element of
"social reaction" that, according to such theorists, it is not possible to understand the former
without taking account of the latter - they are, in effect, two sides of the same coin.
Labeling theory was first introduced by Frank Tannenbaum in 1938 under the rubric of tagging.
He wrote, “The young delinquent becomes bad because he is defined as bad and because he is
not believed if he is good.” He went on to say, “The process of making the criminal, therefore, is
a process of tagging. . . . It becomes a way of stimulating . . . and evolving the very traits that are
complained of. . . . The person becomes the thing he is described as being.”
In his book Outsiders, published in 1963, Howard Becker pointed out that criminality is not a
quality inherent in an actor in a person. Crime, said Becker, results from a social definition,
through law, of unacceptable behavior. According to Becker, the social group creates deviance.
The group makes the rule and then applies it to the person labeling that person an ‘outsider.’ This
social group could be the community in general or particular agents of social control, e.g. the
police (or teachers). In other words behavior is not inherently deviant or normal but is defined
and labeled that way by people in charge of defining and labeling.
Lemert (1967) was the next to explore the intricate web of the self, society, and deviance. He
introduced the concept of primary and secondary deviance. Some norm violations—say,
skipping school or underage drinking—may provoke some reaction from others, but this process
has little effect on a person’s self-concept. Lemert calls such passing episodes primary deviance.
But what happens if people take notice of someone’s deviance and really make something of it?
Lemert (1951:77) calls this change of self-concept secondary deviance. He explains that “when a
person begins to employ . . . deviant behavior as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the
. . . problems created by societal reaction . . . ,deviance [becomes] secondary.” For example, say
that people have begun describing a young man as an “alcohol abuser,” which establishes
primary deviance. These people may then exclude him from their friendship network. His
response may be to become bitter toward them, start drinking even more, and seek the company
of others who approve of his drinking. These actions mark the beginning of secondary deviance,
a deeper deviant identity. Secondary deviance is promoted through an internal process of
normalization of behavior and a lack of social controls; this process creates, maintains, and
intensifies stigmas that include invidious labels, marks, or publicly disseminated information
(Goffman, 1963), which are akin to Tannenbaum’s (1938) “tags.”
Negative effects of labeling
Secondary deviance marks the start of what Erving Goffman (1963) called a deviant career. As
people develop a deeper commitment to their deviant behavior, they typically acquire a stigma, a
powerfully negative label that greatly changes a person’s self-concept and social identity. The
drug experimenter becomes an addict; the recreational drinker becomes an alcoholic; the joy
rider a car thief. As the society begins to recognize and sanction these behaviors, the application
of the labels increases, or amplifies, instead of decreases, the act.
A stigma operates as a master status overpowering other dimensions of identity so that a person
is discredited in the minds of others and consequently becomes socially isolated. Often a person
gains a stigma informally as others begin to see the individual in deviant terms. Sometimes,
however, an entire community stigmatizes a person in a public way.
Once people stigmatize a person as deviant, they may engage in retrospective labeling, a
reinterpretation of the person’s past in light of some present deviance (Scheff, 1984). For
example, after discovering that a priest has sexually molested a child, others rethink his past,
perhaps offering comments such as “He always did want to be around young children.”
Retrospective labeling, which distorts a person’s biography by being highly selective, typically
deepens a deviant identity.
Similarly, people may engage in projective labeling of a stigmatized person, using a deviant
identity to predict the person’s future actions. Regarding the priest, people might say,“ He’s
going to keep at it until he’s caught.” The more people in someone’s social world think such
things and act accordingly, the more these definitions affect the individual’s self-concept, and the
greater the chance that the predictions will come true.
Labeling theory, helps to explain the way our society understands deviance. Over the past fifty
years, the growing influence of psychiatry and medicine has led to the medicalization of
deviance, the transformation of moral and legal deviance into a medical condition.
Medicalization amounts to swapping one set of labels for another. In moral terms, we judge
people or their behavior as either “bad” or “good.” However, the scientific objectivity of
medicine passes no moral judgment, instead using clinical diagnoses such as “sick” or “well.”
To illustrate this idea, until the mid-twentieth century, most people viewed alcoholics as morally
weak people easily tempted by the pleasure of drink. Gradually, however, medical specialists
redefined alcoholism so that most people now consider it a disease, leading us to define
alcoholics as “sick” rather than “bad.” In the same way, obesity, drug addiction, child abuse,
sexual promiscuity, and other behaviors that used to be strictly moral matters are widely defined
today as illnesses for which people need help rather than punishment.
Whether we define deviance as a moral or a medical issue has three consequences. First, it
affects who responds to deviance. An offense against common morality typically brings a
reaction from members of the community or the police. A medical label, however, places the
situation under the control of clinical specialists, including counselors, psychiatrists, and
physicians.
A second issue is how people respond to deviance. A moral approach defines deviants as
offenders subject to punishment. Medically, however they are patients who need treatment.
Punishment is designed to fit the crime, but treatment programs are tailored to the patient and
may involve any therapy that a specialist thinks might prevent future illness.
Third, and most important, the two labels differ on the issue of the competence of the deviant
person. From a moral standpoint, whether we are right or wrong, at least we are responsible for
our own behavior. Once we are defined as sick, however, we are seen as unable to control (or if
“mentally ill,” even to understand) our actions. People who are labeled incompetent are subject
to treatment, often against their will. For this reason alone, defining deviance in medical terms
should be done with extreme caution.
Labeling theory states that there are a multitude of factors that affect that gets labeled and treated
as deviant. There appears to be a great deal of support for this contention. It ranges from
characteristics of the actor, to characteristics of the audience, to characteristics of the victim.
Criticisms of labeling theory.
Although labeling theory offers a useful insight into the social construction of deviance, it has
been the object of a number of recurring criticisms.
 Labeling theory is not really concerned with the causes of the behaviour that becomes
labeled as deviant. This so-called ‘primary deviance' – which is the original act – is less
important for them than an examination of ‘secondary deviance' – the behaviour that follows
from the labeling. Labeling theory argues that only in some instances does primary deviance
become secondary deviance through labeling – so that it's the latter that should be the prime
focus of concern.
 Labeling theory has been criticized for its focus on a relatively limited range of behaviours.
Extremely common forms of everyday crime such as property crime are missing from the
analysis.
 In much of the writing, the person who is labeled as deviant seems to play little or no role in
the defining process. There is a tendency for the labeled groups to be depicted as passive
victims.
 Labeling theory doesn't seem to entertain the possibility that labeling can actually ‘work' in
reforming deviant behaviour. Aren't there occasions where the application of the label can
result in a decrease in deviant behaviour?
 Labeling theory tends to concentrate on middle-level agencies of social control such as the
police and the courts. Critics of the approach – such as conflict theorists – argue that it lacks
a proper analysis of the origins of those definitions of law and deviance used by agents such
as the social workers and the police.
 Conflict theorists argue that, with its focus on outsider groups, labeling theory overlooks the
crimes of the powerful and the inherent violence and exploitation of the capitalist economy.
 Self-assessment Question
1. Are the effects of labeling always negative?
2. Discuss two types of deviance as mentioned by Lemert?
7.4.3 Deviant Subcultures
In criminology, sub cultural theory emerged from the work of the Chicago School on gangs and
developed through the symbolic interactionism school into a set of theories arguing that certain
groups or subcultures in society have values and attitudes that are conducive to crime and
violence. The primary focus is on juvenile delinquency because theorists believe that if this
pattern of offending can be understood and controlled, it will break the transition from teenage
offender into habitual criminal.
A subculture is a group of people who participate in a shared system of values and norms that are
at variance with those of the larger culture. Subcultural explanations of crime posit the existence
of group values that support criminal behavior.
Albert Cohen (1955) suggests that criminality is most common among lower-class youths
because they have the least opportunity to achieve success by conventional means. Neglected by
society, they seek self-respect by creating a deviant subculture that defines as worthy the traits
these youths do have. Being feared on the street may win few points with society as a whole, but
it may satisfy a youth’s desire to “be somebody” in a local neighborhood. In his book Delinquent
Boys: The Culture of the Gang,(1955), he reported the following:
• The delinquent subculture exists because it offers a solution to the status problems and
frustrations working-class boys experience in their efforts to achieve middle-class success.
• Although these boys typically aspire to middle-class lifestyles and goals, their early life
experiences leave them unprepared to successfully compete in school and other areas necessary
for upward mobility.
• Working-class boys are constantly evaluated by “middle-class measuring rods.” However, their
working-class background does not adequately equip them to practice the middle-class standards
necessary for success, such as suppression of aggression, deferral of gratification, self-reliance,
self-discipline, ambition, and academic achievement.
• Given this discrepancy, such boys often experience status frustration, which they deal with by
developing a delinquent response: the youths reject middle-class standards and turn to the
delinquent subculture of the gang.
• This subculture provides them with new forms of status achieved through gang membership.
Cohen describes this delinquent subculture as malicious, non-utilitarian, and negativistic. It is
organized around the need to openly renounce anything suggesting middle-class values, because
such lifestyles are largely beyond the hope of attainment.
Walter Miller (1958) adds that deviant subcultures are characterized by
(1) trouble, arising from frequent conflict with teachers and police;
(2) toughness, the value placed on physical size, strength, and agility, especially among males;
(3)smartness, the ability to succeed on the streets, to outsmart or “con” others;
(4) a need for excitement, the search for thrills, risk, or danger;
(5) a belief in fate, a sense that people lack control over their own lives; and
(6) a desire for freedom, often expressed as anger toward authority figures.
Support for Miller’s perspective was found in Oscar Lewis’s 1960s study of the culture of
poverty. Lewis’s perspective stresses the idea that the values of the poor are substantially
different from the values of people in the mainstream of society.
Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin reported in 1960 in their research on delinquency that three
distinct types of delinquent subcultures exist: the criminal, conflict, and retreatist subcultures.
From their perspective, even illegitimate means may not always be available to lower-class
youths. Thus, the particular type of delinquent subculture that forms depends in large part on
whether the youths have access to deviant or criminal opportunities and to adult criminal role
models within their neighborhoods.
Cloward and Ohlin used the term differential opportunity to refer to relative access to criminal
role models and opportunities for crime.
Critiques of sub cultural theory have been numerous. A major difficulty for these theories lies in
the fact that studies involving self-reports of crime commission have shown that much violence
and crime occur outside of “criminal” subcultures. Many middle- and upper-class lawbreakers
are able to avoid the justice system and therefore do not enter the “official” crime statistics.
Hence, criminal subcultures may be those in which crime is more visible rather than more
prevalent.The interactionist perspective has thus contributed to positive developments in the
study of crime and deviance.
• It has drawn attention to the ubiquity of deviant behaviour, to the element of chance involved in
who gets labeled as what, while showing how meanings and labels are the product of negotiation
through interaction.
• It expanded the field of study to include interesting areas of non-criminal deviance. Its ideas
were used by neo-Marxists who combined it with a class analysis of the structure of society to
create the New Criminology on the 1970s.
7.5 SUMMARY
This chapter examined explanations that focus on crime from sociological perspective. The
social-structural approach viewed the entire society as being to blame for crime. Even violent
crime was seen as the result of the social structure—the oppressed kill and steal to get even with
a society that has wronged them.
Émile Durkheim claimed that crime is normal and functional. His concept of anomie was
discussed in the context of social solidarity and its relationship to deviant and criminal
behavior.Anomie is an important concept in criminological theory. It was further developed by
Robert K. Merton, who focused on American culture, which he analyzed by typologies, or modes
of adaptation to societal goals and the acceptable means of attaining those goals.The Chicago-
based studies of Park and Burgess and of Shaw and McKay were examined and critiqued.
Hirschi developed control theory in terms of his position that it is conforming behavior that must
be explained. He did so in terms of four components of social bonds: attachment to conventional
persons, commitment to conventional behavior, involvement with conventional people, and belief
in conventional norms. He found that weak attachments to parents and to school are more
predictive of delinquent and criminal behavior than class. Gottfredson and Hirschi developed a
general self-control theory. They argued that low self-control, which results primarily from poor
parenting, is the best predictor of criminal behavior. They attempted to measure the
characteristics of persons with low self-control and relate them to criminal behavior.
The chapter gave extensive attention to critical criminology, looking at the impact of Karl Marx
on this area of criminology.
The chapter then turned to a more extensive analysis of Edwin H. Sutherland’s theory of
differential association .Sutherland viewed his theory as one that explains all behavior, not just
deviance, delinquency, or crime. Individuals learn those behaviors in the same ways they learn
acceptable behaviors. Sutherland’s work influenced other social scientists. The chapter also
focused on labeling theory, which considers why, of all the people who engage in deviant,
delinquent, or criminal behavior, some are processed through criminal justice systems while
others are ignored. Additionally, Subcultural explanations of crime has been discussed, The
sociological theories attempt to explain differential reaction to the social structure; they are based
on the sociological proposition that criminal behavior is acquired through social interaction just
as noncriminal behavior is acquired.
Akers, Ronald. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance.
Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998.
Becker, Howard S. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press,
1963
Chambliss, William. “A Sociological Analysis of the Law of Vagrancy.” Social Problems 12,
Summer (1964): 150-70.
Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. A General Theory of Crime. Berkeley, California:
Stanford University Press, 1990.
Williams, Frank P. III. “The Sociology of Criminological Theory: Paradigm or Fad.” In the
Sociology of Delinquency: Current Issues, edited by Gary F. Jensen. Beverly Hills, California:
Sage, 1981.
7.7 Model question
Discuss Sociological approaches of criminology.
Lesson 8
VIOLENT CRIMES
Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Violent Crimes

8.2 Theorizing Homicide
8.3types of Homicide
8.3.1 Non Culpable Homicide
8.3.2 Culpable Homicide
8.4 Extent of Homicide & Culpable Homicide in India
8.5Assault
8.6 Aggravated Assault
8.7 Causes of Aggravated Assault
8.8 Consequences of Aggravated Assault
8.9 Major Violent Crimes against Women in India
8.10 Summary
8.11Glossary
8.13 Model Question
8.0 Objectives
After reading this lesson you would be able to know
 The meaning and types of violent crime.

 Understand Homicide and its various theories
 Distinguish between culpable homicide and non-culpable homicide
 Know the meaning of assault and aggravated assault
 Know the causes and consequences of aggravated assault
8.1 Violent Crimes
Violent Crime refers to the violence created by behavior by persons, against persons or property
that intentionally threatens, attempts, or actually inflicts physical harm. The seriousness of the
injuries to the victim(s), whether or not guns or other weapons were used and/or whether or not
the alleged perpetrator has a criminal record changes seriousness of crime.
Often times, violent crimes against individuals and their property are due to hatred, revenge,
greed for money or property or fighting for rights of a group or community. The most common
violent crimes are aggravated assault, arson, assault and battery, domestic violence, hate crimes,
homicide, manslaughter, mayhem, murder, terrorism and theft/larceny. Violent crimes affect the
life and safety of the people. Such crimes induce a sense of insecurity and fear in the community.
The frequency and the magnitude of such crimes also affect the public peace.
Under Indian Penal Code (IPC) the following crimes reported to the Police authorities have been
grouped as ‘Violent Crimes’.
I. Violent crimes affecting life

Murder, Attempt to Commit Murder, Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder, Dowry
Deaths and Kidnapping & Abduction;
II. Violent crimes affecting property

Dacoity, Preparation & Assembly for Dacoity and Robbery;
III. Violent crimes affecting public safety

Riots and Arson;
IV. Violent crimes affecting Women: Rape, Cruelty by husband or his relatives, Assault on
women with intent to outrage her modesty, Kidnapping & Abduction.
8.2 Theorizing Homicide

Homicide from the earliest times has fascinated the human mind and has always been considered
as most heinous of offences. The word homicide has been derived from the latin word ‘homo’
which means a man, and ‘caedere’ which means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing
of a human being, by a human being.

Biological and psychological explanations are considered the most popular models for
explaining the nature of Homicide. These models of explanation have used many and diverse
theoretical bases - including psychiatry, psychology, psychodynamics, psychometrics as well as
those based on biological, hereditary and genetic factors. The basic assumption is that 'the
murderer' is a distinct category of person who exhibits particular traits and attributes that make
him or her essentially different from other people. The focus of attention in such case is the
individual offender, the perpetrator. Historically, this tradition is rooted in an ideology of
individualism. These emerged in the works of early criminologists, writing in the1870's and no
doubt influenced by Darwinism, who focused their attentions on various biological determinants
of homicidal and other criminal behaviour - based on the premise that individuals behaved
differently because they were somehow structured differently . Lombroso, for example, focused
on the physical characteristics of criminals and concluded that murderers as a group were
'biologically degenerate and had bloodshot eyes, aquiline noses, curly black hair, strong jaws, big
ears, thin lips and menacing grins' Later, Ferri argued that homicide offenders were characterized
by 'moral insensibility, ferocity, apathy, a weak power of resistance to criminal desires,
exaggerated sensibility, sanguine or nervous temperament. The ideas are based on legacy of this
approach were apparent in America as recently as the 1930's in Hooton's work on the physical
characteristics of different types of criminals. He concluded that 'tall thin men' tended to be
murderers and robbers, and that 'tall heavy men' also tend to be killers (Void, 1979). Generally,
murderers were regarded as being 'older, heavier, larger in the chest, broader in the jaw, heavier
in the shoulders relative to their stature, and shorter in relative trunk length' when compared with
ordinary criminals (quoted in Wolfgang, 1967). Despite a general decline of interest in theories
of biological determinism throughout this century, recent years have witnessed a certain
resurgence in the popularity of such explanations - albeit in a modified, more sophisticated form.
This is evidenced in the research that has been done on the XYY chromosome and on the
brainwave patterns of violent offenders (Klein, 1973). Generally, however, purely physiological
explanations of homicide have been replaced by more sophisticated analyses, still rooted in the
individual, but based on psychological theories of human behaviour.

Psychological theories explain the nature and cause of homicide pertaining to the individual
psychology of the offender. They frequently ascribe crime to the personality of the individual
criminal .According to psychologist’s individuals personality traits such as that of being
aggressive or passive, levels of intelligence are the main factors of commission of the acts of
Homicide. Hurt of one’s ego. The psychological theories explain homicide on the basis of
identifying a class of people, "murderers', who are physiologically or psychologically different
from a group of non-murderers (Lunde, 1975). A related but often implicit assumption is that
murder is a form of criminal behavior distinct from other violent offences, and as such requires
specific attention. However psychological theories are criticized to be based on unproven
theories and often reach extremely obscure interpretative levels. The major argument posed in
critique of psychological theories is that though personality factors are considered primary in
these studies, many researchers fail to hypothesize or theorize about the links between these
personality elements and criminal behaviour (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967).
A related problem with many explanations based on the personality of the individual is that they
seek characteristics common to all who commit a homicide offence. Psychological tests rarely
distinguish between different types of homicide offender and usually discuss and analyse them
all together as though they formed an undifferentiated group. Yet there is increasing recognition
that homicide is a heterogeneous rather than homogeneous phenomenon, encompassing a variety
of people, killing in different circumstances under very different pressures. It is misleading to
expect to find common personality characteristics across all categories of homicide offenders. By
concentrating on certain psychological or personality differences of the convicted murderer
population, the individual model ignores etiological or dynamic factors that may be involved in
homicide. It fails to acknowledge, for example, the subtle ways that cultural values, beliefs,
attitudes and expectations, as well as everyday stresses and tensions, can affect and precipitate
violent behaviour.
8.2.3 Sociological Explanations
Various theories have been drawn from the sociological discipline have been applied to study
homicide. In contrast with the biological and psychological explanations, the sociological
theories share a concern to study homicide as a consistently patterned form of social behaviour.
They focus, with varying degrees of emphasis, on the collective features of homicide by
examining, for example, the common characteristics of homicide offenders and victims, and the
relationship between them. Focus is thus not on the individual offender, but on the class of
offender or victim, or on other recurrent patterns in the circumstances in which homicides are
committed. Sociologists take various variables such as age, sex, marital status, race and
employment status of the offender to explain ‘sociological picture of homicide.
Socio- demographic perspective

Verkko (1951), for example in a study of homicide in Finland, established that the female
homicide rate was consistently low, in comparison to the male offenders. He immediately
concluded from this that the different biological qualities of men and women were the
fundamental cause of this phenomenon. Similarly, Najman (1980), in an Australian study on the
victims of homicide, states that homicide victims were of low status and out of employment at
the time of their death.
The Subculture of Violence.

The subculture of violence theory is one of the most widely influential of the sociological
theories on homicide, and on violent behaviour in general. The theory propounded by Wolfgang
and Ferracuti (1967) States that in most criminal homicides both victim and offender belong to
the lowest socio-economic group in society, they suggested, could be explained by reason of
almost everyone in these groups sharing beliefs about using physical force when insulted or
challenged. These beliefs, they argued, comprised a 'sub-culture of violence'.
Thus the use of violence is explained in a cultural context of shared norms and values, passed
down from generation to generation. These values prescribe a form of behaviour which is
expected and accepted as the 'norm' in that particular culture, even though they are at variance
with the 'mainstream' culture in society. Wolfgang and Ferracuti's explanation appeared
plausible: it was apparently accurate in description, and it was attractive to many sociologists
because it analysed violence in terms of the expression of culturally accepted norms, rather than
the uncontrolled expression of some inner aggressive drive. It also accorded very well with the
'cycle of poverty’ notion so popular in the 60's when Wolfgang and Ferracuti were writing.
The theoretical approaches discussed above help us in arriving appropriate framework for the
study of homicide. The Sociological model placed emphasis on the relationship between victim
and offender, and on both the immediate and the wider social context in which acts of homicidal
violence occur. Importantly, this model allows for the analysis of consistent patterns in homicide,
by which a classification of different types of homicide can be devised.
Define Homicide.
8.3 Types of Homicide may be culpable or non-culpable. Culpable homicide (CH) is that
homicide which is punishable either under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) or under Section
304 IPC. We are primarily concerned with culpable homicide.
8.3.1 Non Culpable Homicide

Homicide may be either permitted by law or may be committed under circumstances which
provide legal justification for example; the executioner executes the convict who has been
awarded death sentence. A solider kills anyone in the war.
A child less than 7 years of age kills a human being. Such killing is excused under Section 82 of
IPC. A child under 7 years being immature is incapable of forming Mens Rea (Guilty mind)
which is an essential condition for determining the nature of crime and therefore he won’t be
held guilty. Similarly, an insane person happens to kill another person under the influence of
insanity, he is also excused because he too is incapable of forming the requisite Mens Rea to
commit murder.
Sometimes killing takes place under a mistaken identity. In one case, the accused was guarding
his maize field during night. During the night, he heard some noise. He thought that some wild
animal has entered into the maize field. He shot an arrow in that direction. He happened to kill a
human being who had stealthily entered into the maize crop. The accused was acquitted of the
charge of homicide because killing was done under mistaken identity.
If killing takes place while exercising the right of private defense of person or property, in that
case also it is justified. Sections 96-106, IPC regulate the right of private defense of person and
property. Law empowers a person to protect not only his person and property but he has full
authority to protect the person or property of any other person. In one case, A was having sexual
intercourse with B (minor daughter of the accused) the accused killed A, but he was not guilty of
murder because it was done to protect the person of her minor daughter (under S.375 a women
less than 16 years of age is not competent to give her consent for sexual intercourse.
8.3.2 . Culpable Homicide
The crime of manslaughter is known as Homicide.
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code deals with Culpable Homicide and it is stated as follows –
“Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of Culpable
Homicide.”The important elements are:-1) Causing of death of a human being.2) Such death
must have been caused by an act
With the intention of causing death; or
With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or.
With the knowledge that the doer is likely by such an act to cause death
Sections 299 and 300 of IPC contain definition of culpable Homicide and murder respectively.
Section 302 contains punishment for murder. Murder is nothing but the aggravated form of
Culpable Homicide. In essence, difference between the two lies in degree of probability of death.
If probability of death is very high, it is murder. If probability of death is not high, it is likely to
be, homicide not amounting to murder. Shooting a man with gun, cutting his head with a sword
pushing a man from 10th floor of a building, throwing the man from ship with the sea, in all these
cases, death is almost certain. Therefore, these cases are of murder and punishable under
Section.302 IPC. Punishment for murder is either death or life imprisonment. Suppose a person
is thrown from 3rd floor of the building and he dies, it is likely to be case of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. Section 300 IPC while laying down the parameters of murder, states:
Culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused in done:
With the intention of causing death, or (e.g. shooting with a gun, giving poison etc.) If it is
done with the intention of causing bodily injury and the bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death e.g. giving powerful, lathi blow on the head, beheading a person,
causing deep injuries either in the heart or stomach region such injuries which are inflicted with
such injuries which are inflicted with lethal weapon such as sword, farca, on vital parts of the
body, such as heart or stomach, have been considered sufficient to have caused death in the
ordinary course of nature.
If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous, that it must in all
probability cause death e.g. setting out on fire where a man is sleeping inside, Putting adhesive
plaster on mouth, plugging both the nostrils with cotton and tying both hands and feet etc..
Punishment for Culpable homicide is either life imprisonment or imprisonment extending up to
10 years.
There are certain situations as enumerated in five exceptions appended to section 300 IPC where
murder becomes culpable homicide not amounting to murder. These are: murder omitted whilst
the accused was deprived of the power of self control as a result of sudden and grave
provocation; when the accused has exceeded the right of private defense of person or property;
where the murder committed in a sudden fight, where the killing takes place with consent etc.
8.4 Extent of Homicide & Culpable Homicide in India

According to National Crime Records Bureau Report (2017) total of 30,450 cases of murder
were reported during 2016, showing a decline of 5.2% over 2015 (32,127 cases). Uttar Pradesh
(4,889 cases) reported the highest number of cases of murder accounting for 16.1% followed by
Bihar with 8.5% (2,581 cases) and Maharashtra with 7.6% (2,299 cases) during 2016..
Personal vendetta or enmity (5,179 cases) was the motive in highest number of murder cases
followed by property dispute (3,424 cases) and gain (2,270 cases). A total of 88,008 cases of
kidnapping & abduction were reported during 2016, showing an increase of 6.0% over 2015
(82,999 cases). A total of 89,875 (23,350 male and 66,525 females) were kidnapped or abducted,
out of which maximum number of persons were kidnapped or abducted for the purpose of
marriage (33,855) during 2016.
Uttar Pradesh (15,898 cases) reported the highest number of cases of kidnapping & abduction
accounting for 18.1% followed by Maharashtra with 10.6% (9,333 cases) and Bihar with 8.3%
(7,324 cases) during 2016.
A total of 72,829 cases of offences against public tranquillity were registered under various
sections of IPC during 2016, out of which rioting cases accounted for 85.1% of total such cases.
Maximum number of cases under offence against public tranquillity were reported in
Bihar(18.4%) followed by Uttar Pradesh (12.0%) and Maharashtra (11.9%) during 2016.
Some peculiar traits about Homicide
 Offenders are generally young men

 Murders by women are extremely rare and are usually committed in response to
provocations such as harassment or infidelity ( adultery)mists
 In case of murders committed by men the main motives are “zan, zar ,and zamin”
(women, gold and land)
 The perpetrator( one who commits crime) and victim often belong to the same family,
caste, community or peer group.
 The main motives for murder were disputes over property, living arrangements, sexual
matters and transgressions of social norms.
Give examples of Culpable homicide.
8.5 Assault
Assault is defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that they're about to
suffer physical harm. This definition recognizes that placing another person in fear of imminent
bodily harm is itself an act deserving of punishment, even if the victim of the assault is not
actually harmed. An assault may be committed without any actual contact. Degrees of the
offense are usually recognized as first, second, and third degree assault. Although Assault can be
technically classified as a battery, it differs in that "a battery requires a physical contact of some
sort whereas an assault can be committed without physical contact" Assault can be broken down
into two categories: Aggravated Assault and Simple Assault.
Section 351 of the Indian Penal Code (1860) is the general assault provision:
“Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such
gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that
gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit as
assault”.
Explanation
Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his
gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an
assault.
Illustrations
(a) A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause Z to
believe that A is about to strike Z, A has committed an assault.
(b) A begins to unloose the muzzle of a ferocious dog, intending or knowing it to be likely that
he may thereby cause Z to believe that he is about to cause the dog to attack Z. A has committed
an assault upon Z.
(c) A takes up a stick, saying to Z, "I will give you a beating" Here, though the words used by A
could in no case amount to an assault, and though the mere gesture, unaccompanied by any other
circumstances, might not amount to an assault, the gesture explained by the words may amount
to an assault.
Section 353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of
his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his
duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such
person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both. If
Section 354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
Any person who assaults a woman or uses criminal force on any woman with the intention to
outrage her modesty is guilty of an offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He may
also do so with the knowledge that by doing so he would be outraging the modesty of the
woman. Any person who utters any word or makes any sound or gesture or exhibits any object
with the intention that it will be seen or heard by such woman or will intrude up on her privacy is
guilty of insulting the modesty of that woman.
Assault or using criminal force is an offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code while
insulting the modesty of the woman through words or gestures is an offence under Section 509 of
the Code.
Some of the examples illustrating acts that amount to outraging the modesty of a woman are as
follows:
Hugging a woman without her consent, kissing her, touching her private parts or any act which
is likely to put her to shame by outraging her modesty.
Writing letters using vulgar language.
Making vulgar gestures.
Displaying vulgar figures.
Singing songs with vulgar suggestions.
Entering a woman’s house and making vulgar gestures.

Exhibiting his nude body.
The offence under Section 354 is punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both
while that under Section 509 is punishable with a simple imprisonment of 1 year or fine or both.
Both the offences are cognizable, bailable and compoundable with the permission of the court.
8.6 Aggravated Assault
Aggravated Assault is an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of
inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault is usually accompanied by the
use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempts involving
the display of a deadly weapon are included because severe personal injury would likely occur if
the assault were completed. It also refers to an attack with intention of rape. Serious injury
includes broken bones, lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and any other
unspecified injury that requires two or more days of hospitalization.
Aggravated assault is an assault which criminal laws punish more severely due to its seriousness.
Factors which raise an assault to an aggravated assault typically include the use of a weapon, the
status of the victim, the intent of the perpetrator, and the degree of injury caused. Assaults which
happen in the victim’s home can also qualify as an aggravated assault.
A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person:
 attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another person such as in the case of
kidnapping
 attempts to have sexual activity with another person under the age of consent
 attempts or causes bodily injury to another person by using a deadly weapon
Aggravated assault can also be charged in cases of attempted harm against police officers or
other public servants, or for bodily harm stemming from the reckless operation of a motor
vehicle. The latter is often referred to as either vehicular assault or aggravated assault with a
motor vehicle.
Certain states classify certain assaults as aggravated assault under their criminal codes. They may
also use more specific names such as assault with a deadly weapon. Often, aggravated assaults
qualify as felonies, while simple assaults can be misdemeanors.
Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Use of a deadly weapon during an assault constitutes aggravated assault. This applies whether or
not the weapon causes physical injury to anyone. Basic assault does not require physical harm,
but rather that the perpetrator behaves in a way intended to put someone in reasonable fear for
their safety. Someone who does this by threatening the person with a deadly weapon commits
aggravated assault because the fear involved is fear of more grievous injury.
Weapons classified as deadly weapons typically include things which could cause death or
serious injury. Some weapons fit this bill including guns. Whether or not other objects constitute
deadly weapons depends on the manner in which they are used in the assault. For example, a
pocket knife is generally not considered a lethal weapon, but if held to a victims neck, it could be
deadly.
The Identity of the Victim

Some assaults become aggravated assaults depending on the status of the victim. For example,
many states punish assault on police officers, fire fighters and even teachers as aggravated
assault. Typically, for such an assault to constitute aggravated assault, the victim must have been
performing his or her duty when assaulted and the perpetrator must have known of the victims
status.
In addition to possible punishment for aggravated assault, assaults on members of certain

protected classes can constitute hate crimes. These can include assaults based on race, ethnicity,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim.
Intent of the Perpetrator

The mental state of the perpetrator can also push an assault from simple assault to aggravated
assault. If he or she acted with the intent to cause severe harm or fear of severe harm, an assault
can become aggravated. Depending on the state, reckless behavior can also constitute aggravated
assault for example when someone acts with reckless indifference to human life, but without the
specific intent to injure any particular person. If a dangerous or deadly weapon is involved, an
assault may become aggravated even without any specific intent to injure.
Degree of Injury to the Victim

More serious injuries to the victim can cause an assault to become an aggravated assault. In most
states, assaults causing serious bodily injury qualify as aggravated assaults. The seriousness of an
injury will vary greatly from case to case. Injuries threatening death will qualify as a serious
injury, as will those which maim or disfigure the victim. Some states specify by statute particular
injuries that qualify as serious. If a method of assault which would normally cause death only
causes more minor physical injury, some states will still punish it as aggravated assault (or even
attempted homicide).
8.7 Causes of Aggravated Assault

Bars and nightclubs
Many assaults occur in and around bars, nightclubs, and similar liquor serving facilities such as
pubs or taverns. Alcohol consumption leads to risk taking behavior, less concern over
consequences or punishments, high levels of emotion, and poor communication, all which may
cause a violent altercation. The physical environment of bars or nightclubs is conducive to
altercations as they are often overcrowded and under‐regulated. Bars and nightclubs may also
cater to prostitution, drug dealing or aggressive entertainment. In addition, if a particular
geographical location has many bars and nightclubs, customers from different social groups may
encounter one another leading to violence.
Entertainment Venues
Stadiums, arenas, sporting grounds, and concert halls are conducive to aggravated assault
because of overcrowding, high level of physical contact, alcohol consumption, high energy
levels, and the adversarial nature of competitions.
Gang Activity
Criminal gangs commit as much as 80% of crime in many areas. Such crimes include simple and
aggravated assault. It can be a student’s political group at the time of elections or professional
gang of thieves, rapists
Drug Trade
The presence of drug markets increases the likelihood of violence, including aggravated assault.
Violence is common in drug markets as dealers and customers often resort to violence in order to
solve disputes and to maintain business.
Drug or Alcohol Use

Aggravated assaults were perceived to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
8.8 Consequences of Aggravated Assault

Arrest
The first consequence for aggravated assault may well be an arrest. Police may arrest someone
who has committed aggravated assault if the police have probable cause (to suspect that the
individual committed the crime) or a warrant allowing the police to arrest that person. During an
arrest, a suspect is typically handcuffed, driven in a police car to a police station, fingerprinted
and has her mug shot taken.
Trial
After an arrest, the court will determine whether it will bring charges against the aggravated
assault suspect. The charges brought often depend on a variety of factors, including the injury to
the victim and the criminal history of the defendant. If the suspect pleads guilty or does not
contest to the charges, no trial will take place. Instead, the court will proceed to sentencing. If the
suspect pleads not guilty, he has a right to a jury trial( hire advocate) to plead his case. Trials
often take years to complete, and the suspect may be detained until that time if no bail is offered.
However, this time may be applied to any resulting prison sentence.
Prison
Because it is a serious crime, aggravated assault is usually a felony. Felonies are punishable by
more than one year in prison, though it is possible to serve less time in some jurisdictions on
conditions such as good behavior. Prisoners may be subjected to a wide variety of conditions,
from intermixing with other prisoners to solitary confinement. Also, many prisoners are moved
far from their homes, keeping them away from their families.
Civil Suit
Not only is aggravated assault a criminal offense, but it also opens up a perpetrator to civil
liability. This means that the victim of the aggravated assault may sue the assailant for personal
damages. The assaulter may have to pay all the medical or hospital expenses which have been
paid by the victim due to a certain bodily injury caused by the assaulter.
8.9 Major Violent Crimes against Women in India

The National Crime Records Bureau reveal that a crime against a woman is committed every
three minutes, a woman is raped every 29 minutes, a dowry death occurs every 77 minutes, and
one case of cruelty committed by either the husband or relative of the husband occurs every nine
minutes.[
According to the NCRB, as of 2018, the majority of crimes against women were registered under
‘Cruelty by Husband or His Relatives’ (31.9%) followed by ‘Assault on Women with Intent to
Outrage her Modesty’ (27.6%), ‘Kidnapping & Abduction of Women’ (22.5%) and ‘Rape’
(10.3%). The crime rate per lakh women population was 58.8 in 2018, as compared to 57.9 in
2017.
Rape
In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person
without that person's consent. Outside of law, the term is often used interchangeably with sexual
assault, a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault typically
including rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity. Definition of rape is given in
Article 375 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) as written below:
“A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual
intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following
descriptions:-
First: Against her will. Secondly: Without her consent. Thirdly: With her consent, when her
consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death
or of hurt. Fourthly: With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that
her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes
herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly: With her consent, when, at the time of giving such
consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him
personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to
understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly: With or
without her consent, when she is of sixteen years of age.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence
of rape.
Exception: Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years
of age, is not rape.”
Rape is the fastest growing crime in the country today and as many as 18 women are assaulted in
some form or the other every hour across India. Over the last few months cases of rapes and
assault have made it to the headlines with alarming frequency. The Bandit Queen case (Bobby
Art Int Vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996) 4 SCC), which depicts the tragic story of a village
girl.Phoolan Devi- who was exposed from an early age to the lust and brutality of some men. She
was married to a man old enough to be her father. She was beaten and raped by him. She was
later thrown out of the village- accused of luring boys of the upper caste. She was arrested by the
police and subjected to indignation and humiliation. Was also kidnapped and raped by the leader
of dacoits and later by the leader of a gang of Thakurs- who striped her naked and paraded her in
front of the entire village. This is truly one story that shows the apathy of our society.
According to NCRB 2019 statistics, Rajasthan reported the highest number of rapes among
Indian states. Other states in the hindi heartland region, across North India, such as Madhya
Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Chhattisgarh, also have the highest incidence of sexual
violence against women. Among metropolitan cities, the national capital of Delhi continued to
have the highest incidence of rape at 1253 cases in 2019, while Jaipur had the highest rape rate
(per 100,000 population).
Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence can be described as when one adult in a relationship misuses power to
control another. It is the establishment of control and fear in a relationship through violence and
other forms of abuse. The violence may involve physical abuse, sexual assault and threats.
Sometimes it’s more subtle, like making someone feel worthless, not letting them have any
money, or not allowing them to leave the home. The contributing factors could be the desire to
gain control over another family member, the desire to exploit someone for personal benefits, the
flare to be in a commanding position all the time showcasing one’s supremacy so on and so
forth. Domestic Violence against women is the most common form of domestic violence. One
of the reasons for it being so prevalent is the orthodox and idiotic mindset of the society that
women are physically and emotionally weaker than the males. Though women today have
proved themselves in almost every field of life affirming that they are no less than men, the
reports of violence against them are much larger in number than against men. The possible
reasons are many and are diversified over the length and breadth of the country. According to
United Nation Population Fund Report, around two-third of married Indian women are victims of
domestic violence and as many as 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of 15
and 49 are victims of beating, rape or forced sex. In India, more than 55 percent of the women
suffer from domestic violence, especially in the states of Bihar, U.P. , M.P and other states The
most common causes for women stalking and battering include dissatisfaction with the dowry
and exploiting women for more of it, arguing with the partner, refusing to have sex with him,
neglecting children, going out of home without telling the partner, not cooking properly or on
time, indulging in extra marital affairs, not looking after in-laws etc. In some cases infertility in
females also leads to their assault by the family members. The greed for dowry, desire for a male
child and alcoholism of the spouse are major factors of domestic violence against women in rural
areas. There have been gruesome reports of young bride being burnt alive or subjected to
continuous harassment for not bringing home the amount of demanded dowry. Women in India
also admit to hitting or beating because of their suspicion about the husband’s sexual
involvement with other women. The Tandoor Murder Case of Naina Sahni in New Delhi in the
year 1995 is one such dreadful incident of a woman being killed and then burnt in a Tandoor by
his husband. This incidence was an outcome of suspicion of extra marital affairs of Naina Sahni
which led to marital discord and domestic violence against her.
In urban areas there are many more factors which lead to differences in the beginning and later
take the shape of domestic violence. These include – more income of a working woman than her
partner, her absence in the house till late night, abusing and neglecting in-laws, being more
forward socially etc. Working women are quite often subjected to assaults and coercion sex by
employees of the organization. At times, it could be voluntary for a better pay and designation in
the office.
Violence against young widows has also been on a rise in India. Most often they are cursed for
their husband’s death and are deprived of proper food and clothing. They are not allowed or
encouraged for remarriage in most of the homes, especially in rural areas. There have been cases
of molestation and rape attempts of women by other family members in nuclear families or
someone in the neighbourhood. At times, women are even sexually coerced by their partner
themselves against their will. They are brutally beaten and tortured for not conceiving a male
child. Incidents like, ripping off a woman’s womb for killing the female foetus when she
disagrees for abortion have also come to light especially in rural areas. Female foeticide and
female infanticide are of prime concern. Other forms of physical abuse against women include
slapping, punching, grabbing, burdening them with drudgery, public humiliation and the neglect
of their health problems. Some of the other forms of psychological torment against them could
be curtailment of their rights to self-expression and curbing the freedom to associate with the
natal family and friends.
Dowry-related violence and early marriage: In some countries, weddings are preceded by the
payment of an agreed-upon dowry by the bride's family. Failure to pay the dowry can lead to
violence. In India, an average of five women a day is burned in dowry-related disputes -- and
many more cases are never reported.
The cases of dowry deaths have declined by 9.7% during the year 2015(7,634 cases) over the
previous year (8,455 cases). A total of 7,646 victims were reported under 7,634 dowry deaths
cases in the country during the year 2015. 30.6% of the total cases of dowry deaths were reported
in Uttar Pradesh (2,335 cases) alone followed by Bihar (1,154 cases). The highest crime rate in
respect of dowry deaths was reported in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (2.3 each) as compared to the
national average of 1.3. Cruelty by husband or his relatives was the single most committed crime
against women in 2019, comprising 31% of all crimes against women.
Early marriage, especially without the consent of the girl, is another form of human rights
violation. Early marriage followed by multiple pregnancies can affect the health of women for
life.
Kidnapping & Abduction of Women :A total of 59,277 cases were registered under
kidnapping & abduction of women during 2015. These cases have shown an increase of 3.4%
during 2015 over the previous year 2014 (from 57,311 cases). Uttar Pradesh with 10,135 cases of
kidnapping & abduction has accounted for 17.1% of the total such cases. Delhi UT has reported
the highest crime rate at 46.3 compared to the national average of 9.8.
Violence perpetrated by States

Custodial Violence against Women
Violence against women by the very people who are supposed to protect them -- members of the
law enforcement and criminal justice systems -- is widespread. Women are physically or verbally
abused; they also suffer sexual and physical torture. According to Amnesty International,
thousands of women held in custody are routinely raped in police detention centers worldwide.
Violence against women in situations of armed conflict

Rape has been widely used as a weapon of war whenever armed conflicts arise between different
parties. Women and girl children are frequently victims of gang rape committed by soldiers from
all sides of a conflict. Such acts are done mainly to trample the dignity of the victims. In India
many women in Kashmir became victims of rape by military in Kashmir.
Violence against refugee and displaced women

Women and children from the great majority of refugee populations all over the world and are
especially vulnerable to violence and exploitation. In refugee camps, they are raped and abused
by military and immigration personnel, bandit groups, male refugees and rival ethnic groups.
They are also forced into prostitution.
8.10 Summary
Violent crimes are crimes committed with an intention to physical harm a person or group of
persons. It also results in a great loss to the property whether of a person or of a state. Indian
Penal Code has classified violent crimes as those crime which affect a life, property, public
safety and women. In India Violent crimes against women like rape and domestic violence is on
high rise. Homicide is also regarded as one of the most common of the violent crimes prevalent
in our society. Various theories such as biological, psychological and sociological have tried to
explain the nature and causes of homicide. Out of these Sociological theories have been found to
be most plausible. Culpable and Non Culpable Homicide are the main types of Homicide stated
under Indian Penal Code. It’s the criminal intention which differentiates between culpable and
non-culpable homicide. The rate of Homicide in India is increasing day by day. The offender is
primarily male who commits murder under the motive of getting or taking money, land and
women. Assault is a grave form of violent crimes. Indian Penal Code explains assault in terms of
verbal, physical and sexual. Aggravated assault mainly involves causing serious bodily harm or
injury through a deadly weapon.
8.11 Glossary
Felony: serious crimes such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent or
strict sentence
Misdemeanor: Minor offence such as pick pocketing, violation of traffic rules.
Violent Crime: a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the
victim.
Homicide: The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.
Culpable Homicide: is an offence under s.299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), defined as:-
"Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention
of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely
by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Non Culpable Homicide: killing of a person in self-defense or in pursuance of a lawful
authority or by reason of mistake or fact, is non culpable homicide.

Lund, L. E., & Smorodinsky, S. 2001. Violent death among intimate partners: A comparison of
homicide and homicide followed by suicide. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31, 451-
459.
Thakur, Upendra. 2010. An Introduction to Homicide in India. Abhinav Publications.
Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in criminal homicide. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
8.13 Model question

What are the major forms of Violent Crime? Why they occur?.
Lesson -9
PROPERTY CRIMES
Structure
9.0 Objectives
9.1 Introduction
9.2What are Property Crimes?
9.3 Theft
9.4 Burglary
9.5 Extortion
9.6 Dacoity
9.7 Robbery
9.8 Criminal Misappropriation of Property
9.9 Criminal Breach of Trust
9.10 Receiving Stolen Property
9.11 Cheating
9.12 Summary

9.14 Model Question
9.0 Objectives
After reading this lesson you would be able
 Know the meaning of property crimes

 Discuss the various types of property crimes in India mentioned under IPC
 Know the facts and figures of various property crimes in India
9.1 Introduction
In this lesson property related crimes in India have been discussed. As compared to 2,71,798
cases registered under offences against property in 2018, a total of 3,34,050 cases (55.2%) were
registered, showing an increase of 22.9% under offences against property during 2019.
Maximum cases were reported under theft (3,08,360 cases) accounting for 92.3% of total such
cases. Maximum theft cases were reported in Delhi (2,42,642 cases) followed by Jaipur (11,985
cases), Mumbai (8,582 cases) and Bengaluru (7,717 cases) accounting for 78.7%, 3.9%, 2.8%
and 2.5% of total theft cases registered respectively.
Before discussing these in details it is essential to know what are property crimes.
9.2What are Property Crimes?

Property crime is a category of crime in which the person who commits the crime seeks to do
damage to or derive an unlawful benefit or interest from another’s property without using force
or threat of force. Property crimes are often high-volume crimes. Property crime includes
burglary, theft, arson, larceny, shoplifting, and vandalism. Property crime is also termed as crime
against property.
.All human beings have an inborn instinct to do some work and earn something for themselves.
Law recognizes this liberal self-instinct in man and gives protection to it. Thus it is the
fundamental right of an Indian citizen under Article 19(1) (f) of the Indian constitution “to
acquire, hold and dispose property. Hence, it also follows that it is the primary duty and function
of every state, to give protection to the property of individuals so as to justify its existence as
state. Article 300 (A) of the Indian constitution lays down as a fundamental enforceable right of
every person in India, that he should not be deprived of his property, save by the authority of
law”.
Indian Penal Code has amply provided effective sanctions to safeguard those interests of
individuals in society. Indian Penal Code deals with offences against property, the sections of
which may be divided into ten parts:
1. Theft under Indian Penal Code sections 378 to 382.
2. Extortion under Indian Penal Code sections 383 to 389.
3. Robbery and Dacoity under Indian Penal Code sections 390 to 402.
4. Criminal misappropriation under Indian Penal Code sections 403
5. Criminal breach of trust under Indian Penal code sections 405 to 409.
6. Receiving stolen property under Indian Penal Code sections 410 to 414.
7. Cheating under Indian Penal Code sections 415 to 420.
8. Fraudulent deeds and dispositions of property under Indian Penal Code sections 421 to 424.
9. Mischief under Indian Penal Code sections 425 to 440.
10. Criminal trespass under Indian Penal Code sections 441 to 462.
Out of these property offences, the offences of theft, extortion, robbery, cheating, mischief, and
criminal trespass are instances of dispossession of property in one’s possession, while criminal
misappropriation and breach of trust, and receiving stolen property are instances of wrongful
conversion of property of which a person in relation to whom the offence is considered was
already out of possession. The remaining offences, fraudulent deeds and dispossessions, have no
relation to possession, though, if at all, it should probably be placed in instances of dispossession
of property in one’s possession. Possession gives the possessors the right to possess against
everyone but the true owner. This definition of possession is consistent with the concept of
larceny, which is the equivalent offence of theft under the common law of England.
In the present chapter 1-7 parts are discussed under the major property offences.
Property offences in India
During 2016, a total of 7,96,032 cases were reported under offences against property (26.8% of
total IPC crimes) out of which, theft (4,94,404 cases) followed by criminal trespass/burglaries
(1,11,746 cases) accounting for 62.1% and 14.3% respectively. Delhi UT reported maximum
number of cases (1,30,928 cases) followed by Maharashtra (59,097 cases) and Uttar Pradesh
(56,550 cases) accounting for 26.5%, 11.9% and 11.4% of total theft cases respectively. During
2016, Properties worth Rs. 9,733 Crore were stolen and Properties worth Rs. 1,459 Crore were
recovered accounting for 15.0% of recovery of stolen properties. During 2016, out of total theft
(4,94,404 cases), 2,13,765 cases (43.2%) were under auto theft cases of which Delhi UT (38,644
cases) has reported maximum auto theft cases followed by Uttar Pradesh (34,480 cases) and
Maharashtra (22,435 cases). During 2016, 2,20,854 cases of property crimes took place at
residential premises. However, majority of robberies took place on highways/roads with 17,599
cases.
9.3 THEFT
An act of theft is considered as an offence under the following Indian Penal Code sections:
Under section 378 of IPC, an act of moving a movable property of a person out of his possession
without his consent and the moving being in order to take the property with the dishonest
intention is considered to be a theft and an offence punishable. The punishment for such theft is
imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both as per the section 379 of IPC.
Aggravated Forms of Theft
The offences of theft under IPC section 380 consist of theft in any building, tent or vessel used as
a human dwelling or for custody of property. This section makes it more heinous to steal when
the property is kept in building, tent or vessel as a human dwelling or for the custody of property.
The section aims at affording greater security to property deposited in a house, etc. or kept in the
abode of the owner. When the theft occurs in the premises of the owner, it is treated as an
aggravated form, and the punishment is enhanced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine.
When the act of stealing is done by a servant/clerk of the master, section 381 of IPC prescribes
punishment of 7 years imprisonment and fine. Further when the act of theft is carried out under
threat of death or hurt of the possessor, and escaping with the property section 382 of IPC comes
into operation providing imprisonment for 10 years or fine. For instances, the cycles parked
alone on the roadside committed theft by the offenders are punished under the IPC section 379.
Similarly for snatching and pocket picking which occur commonly, the offenders are punished
under section 379 of IPC.
For the offences like temple theft, house theft, where the properties like gold and cash are stolen
commonly, the accused are prosecuted under the section 380 of IPC. The servants working in
houses and offices steal away properties like jewels and cash from the owners. They are
prosecuted under section 381 IPC. When the owner is threatened at the time of committing the
act of theft, section 382 of IPC is used.
Theft is committed by thieves to take away property. Valuable things such as gold, cash, etc. are
taken away by thieves without the knowledge of an individual or a group of individuals, through
pocket picking, snatching, etc. Theft occurs mostly in houses, shops, public places such as
commercial streets, buses, pavements, etc. The Indian Penal Code sections 378 to 382 are used
by the police officials to file cases against the act of theft.,
9.3.1Conditions for Theft
First, the act must be committed intentionally. A woman, who picks up a purse identical to her
own, only to later discover it belongs to someone else, has not committed theft. She has made an
honest mistake. If she chooses to her new purse, however, knows full well that it is not rightfully
hers, and then legally she is committing theft.
Second, the act must involve moving an object from one place to another. This movement can be
as broad as carrying a stolen painting from Mumbai to New York, or as narrow as moving a pen
from someone's office into your office next door. Picking up an object that is not yours and
putting it back without moving anywhere may be rude and nosy, but it does not qualify as theft.
Illustration: If A, having pawned his watch to Z takes it out of Z’s possession without Z’s
consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is
his own property, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. In all the property offences, the concept
of dishonest intention is quite prominent. As defined by Section.23 and 24 of IPC, whoever a
person causes wrongful gain (gain to with he is not legally entitles) to himself or wrongful loss to
another, he is said to have done the act with dishonest intention. The gain or loss may be either
permanent or temporary.
In theft, movable property is taken out of the possession with dishonest intention. Here
possession means depriving the owner or possessor his for power of control over a thing the
thing possessed. Suppose, a maid servant removes a ‘golden ring’ and hides the ring in some
secret place in the house she has committed the offence of theft of the ring even at the stage of
removal of the ring because the owner of the ring could not make use of the ring during the
period when it was hidden in the house. He was this, dispossessed of the ring illegally.
Theft of Office File: In one case, the accused an office superintendent removed the office file
from the office and took the file to his house to make it available to some other person for some
financial gain. He brought the file back to his office. He was held guilty of committing the theft
of the file in as much as the department was deprived of the control over the file, though
temporarily) thus file was removed with dishonest intention.
Theft of Aero plane: The accused who was a trainee pilot in Indian Air Force, took the plane to
the territory of Pakistan. The plane was brought back to India and he was convicted of
committing the theft of the plane. He caused wrongful loss to the Govt. India by taking the plane
unauthorized on unscheduled flight.
Similarly, if a creditor removes the movable property of his debtor in order to force him to clear
his debt, such forceful removal of the property of the debt would constitute theft.
In India cases of theft can be divided into 2 main categories namely i) Theft at ‘Residential
Premises’ ii) Theft at ‘Commercial Establishments’ which includes Highways and Railways.
Punishment: Punishment for theft depends upon person committing theft, place where it is
committed and the manner in which it is committed. If it is committed in a dwelling house; or it
is committed by the clerk, servant etc. or it is committed when the offender is in possession of
weapon with an object to use it if need arises, the punishment would go to the extent of seven
years of imprisonment along with fine. In all other cases, it may be upto three years or fine.
9.3.2 Major Characteristics of Theft in India
 Theft rates are higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Thefts reported from urban
areas, are mostly committed by thieves who disguised themselves as tourists. The theft
rates are high in cities and urban areas due to the presence of floating population. In
crowded commercial streets, thefts like pocket picking, snatchings, and shopliftings are
frequently committed. Moreover, vehicles are often left uncared on the roadsides by the
people who go for their work, to purchase goods, etc., and this itself provides opportunity
for thieves to steal vehicles in cities. In rural areas, people mostly work in the agricultural
farms that are located near their houses. The mobility as well as anonymity of people is
very low in rural areas when compared to city areas. So the thefts committed mostly by
known offenders are dealt with local people themselves. Hence, the thefts reported to
police officials are very low in number. Generally as said by Robert H. Gordon, for a
variety of reasons, cities seem to produce and nurture more crimes than rural areas. One
reason for the high urban crime rate is the pressure of slum or ghetto areas with their
poverty, unemployment, and overcrowding – all conditions associated with crime. In
cities thefts like pocket picking, snatching, vehicle thefts, and shoplifting occur
frequently. Besides, thefts by domestic servants and thefts from residential houses are
frequently reported from urban areas. In rural areas, cattle thefts, bicycle thefts, thefts of
temple possessions and thefts of agricultural products are reported in large number.
 Majority of thefts committed are by Males 98% of thefts are committed by males .In
urban and city areas, women working in houses as maid servants and in shops for daily
wages commit thefts like lifting cash and ornaments. Similarly in rural areas some of the
women landless agricultural labourers commit thefts and they are not professional
thieves; they often commit thefts without any preplan.
 Thefts are largely committed by youths, in the age group of 21 to 25 years. In city and
urban areas, the youth, who migrated for employment opportunities, live in large number
in nearby slum areas. Most of them are either unemployed or underemployed. For their
livelihood, some of them indulge in thefts. Likewise in rural areas also the thefts are
committed by youths and adults. This is due to the paucity of agricultural income and
unemployment. Even, if they migrate to suburban or agglomerated areas for construction
and contract works, they suffer from insufficient income, which makes them indulge in
petty thefts for their livelihood. However Fox in his study about the rate of crime using
temporal data in the United States found that the population between the age group of 18
and 21 years was significantly related to the violent crime rate, and the population
between the age group of fourteen and seventeen years was significantly related to the
property crime rate.
 Single person has involved in large number of thefts like pocket picking, snatching,
bicycle or moppet thefts. These types of thefts are highly found in city, urban and in few
places of rural areas. Vehicles that are parked on the roadsides of the crowded places are
frequently stolen and these offences are mostly committed by a single individual in city
and urban areas. Snatching happens both in the overcrowded places of city and urban
areas and lonely places of rural areas, where nobody could notice the thieves. Four
wheelers like cars and lorries which are parked on roadsides, are often stolen by two or
more than two individuals, and these types of thefts mostly happen in city and rural areas.
Cash thefts are also easily committed by a single individual when the windows of the
locked houses or shops are kept open in the city and urban areas.
 Among types of property stolen it is clear that vehicle thefts are larger in number
followed by thefts of cash and thefts of electric goods come as second in Nilgiris district.
Jewels, electric goods and cash are the third largest properties stolen
Case No 1
Mariyamma aged 60 years, resides with her son in Nachipalayam village of Coimbatore. Her
daughter got married to a security guard who worked in the city. One Sunday afternoon
Mariyamma decided to visit her daughter’s house. So she took a sum of seven hundred rupees
with her to catch the bus in the nearby bus stand. The bus stand was as usual overcrowded. The
innocent, illiterate Mariyamma asked a man who stood nearby to help her to find her bus. The
man noticed the gold chain around Mariyamma’ neck and also came to understand that she had
some cash with her. Using her innocence, he developed a conversation with Mariyamma and
won her trust. After a few minutes of talk, he asked the woman to give her bag as the bus would
be too crowded to get in. Believing that, she gave her bag to that unknown person. A few
minutes later, he told Mariyamma that the bus was approaching; when she turned around, he
suddenly snatched the chain away from her neck and fled the scene before Mariyamma raised
alarm. Mariyamma who lost her cash and chain lodged complaint with the help of her son in the
nearby police station and the case was booked under section 379 of IPC. The unknown person
was later identified as Palaniswamy, 25 years old, residing in a nearby village, when he was
caught red-handed in another theft. He was handed over to the police from whom the police
recovered Mariyamma’s jewel and cash
9.4 BURGLARY
Burglar is any person who enters a building or a part of a building as a trespasser with intent to
steal or commit damage. A person who enters any building as a trespasser, steals, and attempts to
steal is guilty of an offence. Criminal trespass is known in English law as “forcible entry”. In
India criminal trespasser is defined as “A person who commits criminal trespass” if he
1. enters into or upon property in the possession of another.

2. enters with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, to insult or annoy any person in
possession of such property or,
3. any place for the custody of property. Thus any part of the criminal trespasser’s body entering
is sufficient to constitute house-trespass under the Indian Penal Code section 442. Moreover
imprisonment for the offenders is for one year or a fine of Rs. 1000 or both under IPC section448
Burglary is an offence committed by breaking the doors or windows of houses, shops, etc. for
stealing the property. The properties are taken away by the burglars by damaging the buildings,
and sometimes by threatening the house members. The burglary cases are filed under the Indian
Penal Code sections 454/380 IPC (Day Burglary) and 457/380 IPC Night Burglary)
9.4.1Characteristics of Burglary
 The middle and the upper class family members who often move to the city area for their
work, so the burglaries happen more in locked houses.
 Burglary victims seem to be more in the middle residential area status respondents and
the higher class, probably because of their increased possessions at house.
 Cities have more number of the accused per burglary case and rural areas have less
number of the accused per burglary case. Rates of burglary are less in rural areas, where
agriculture is the major occupation of the people. People in villages work mostly near
their residential areas and the mobility of people to far off places is less; so the burglaries
reported are also less in number.
 Most of the burglaries are committed either by an individual or by more than one
individual. The city areas packed up with commercial buildings, apartments, and
bungalows. Hence, more burglaries are committed during day, that too by two or more
persons. The cramped nature of apartments does not allow a single individual to commit
burglary by himself easily. However, night time burglaries are easily committed by a
single individual in independently constructed houses in urban and rural areas.
 The most prominent single item stolen by burglars happens to be jewelry accounting for
one-fourth of the cases. Jewelry is compact and costly. It is available in most of the
houses as well as other establishments, in combination with other items like cash,
vehicles, silver vessels, and electrical and electronic goods. Sometimes jewelry is looted
along with other properties. In other words one-third of burglaries involve theft of
jewelry. In India wearing jewels and hoarding gold has become an important means of
saving. Naturally burglars concentrate on these items, which are valuable, easy to carry
and dispose. The next important property happens to be electric and electronic gadgets
like computer, cell-phone, television, audio system, etc.
 Currency is the most anonymous property and the easiest one for sharing or hording.
Naturally burglars aim at cash and a large number of burglary cases are reported for
stealing cash alone especially in metropolitan cities. Burglars crash the gate and enter into
private premises and take away automobiles like scooters, bikes, and cars. Since the
population of vehicles has increased in the recent past, the thieves have found it easy to
use duplicate keys to take away the vehicles. Besides burglars find it convenient to carry
the already stolen properties on such vehicles quickly. Many a time, in the compound of
establishments or bungalow type houses, it becomes easier for the burglars to trespass
and drive away such vehicles.
9.4.2 Burglary – Some Facts& Figures
 The trend analysis of burglary cases reported at the national level revealed that there was
an increase in such cases by 12.5% during 2013 as compared to the 2003 level and a rise
of 13.1% as compared to the average of last 5 years (2008 - 2012)
 Maharashtra has reported the maximum number of burglary cases.
 Among States/UTs, Delhi has reported the highest increase of 65.3% in incidence of
burglary during the year 2013 as compared to the year 2012 followed by Manipur
(60.4%).
 Every one lakh population in the country experienced nearly 8.5 burglaries in the year
2013.
 The population in urban agglomerations experienced incidents of nearly 14.6 such crimes
per lakh population.
 The highest rate of about 36.2 burglaries per lakh population was reported from Mizoram
during the year 2013
Case No 2
Durai, 55 years old businessman, resides with his wife Meenakshi at Coonoor in Nilgiris District.
His native place is Madurai where he has some lands as ancestral property. They have a
daughter, Deepa, who got married and settled in U.S.A. As Deepa got pregnant, Meenakshi
decided to visit her. After Meenakshi left for U.S.A., Durai stayed alone in his house. When
Durai had to go to Madurai for a month, he handed over his home key to his neighbour, Stalin
informing him about his trip. After a week’s time, two persons came in a tempo to Durai’s house.
They showed a letter to Stalin, which, they told, was written by Durai. In the letter it was written
that as Durai’s daughter would like to visit Madurai for her delivery, they needed some important
household items to be transferred to Madurai. Stalin, was requested by Durai to hand over the
keys to the persons who showed the letter. These unknown persons who not only told all the
details of Durai’s family, but also pretended to be the loyal servants of Durai. Believing that,
Stalin gave away the keys to them, who took away all the valuable household items furnished in
Durai’s house and fled the scene by using the tempo. Durai came to know this incident only after
his return from Madurai. He came to understand that in addition to household items, jewels, cash
and electric goods were also stolen. He made a complaint in the Coonoor police jurisdiction in
which he alleged that some miscreants who made keen observation of his move could have done
this burglary. A case was filed under section 454/380 IPC.
9.5 EXTORTION
This is defined in section 383 of the code which in short lays down that if one puts any person in
fear of any injury and induces him to deliver any property or valuable security commits
extortion. The punishment for the offence is shown in section 384 of the code which is the same
as that for theft.
Main ingredients of the offence are-
(a) intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another: and
(b) Dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or
valuable security.
Section 44 IPC defines injury as any illegal harm caused to and person in body, mind, reputation
or property. Therefore, injury includes not only physical injury but mental agony also. Property
loss also comes within the ambit of injury. In one case, the head master of a school illegally got
three blank papers signed by a lady teacher by threatening her to outrange her modesty. Delivery
of signed blank papers constitutes valuable security and therefore he was held guilty of extortion.
In another case, the accused told the fathers of a girl that he would make the indecent
photographs of her daughter public, if he did not pay money. The father paid money as
demanded by the accused. The accused was held guilty of committing extortion
The distinction between theft and extortion is
(a) In extortion the consent is obtained and in theft no consent is required,
(b) In extortion both the property movable or immovable may be the subject matter, but in theft
only movable property can be stolen,
(c) in extortion the delivery is there by inducing fear while in theft the thief takes away the
property without getting delivery from the owners and lastly,
(d) in extortion the overpowering of the will of the will of the owner exists. While in theft the
element of force is absent.
9.6 DACOITY & ROBBERY
DACOITY
When five or more persons together commit or attempt to commit a robbery, such an attempt is
said to be “Dacoity” under IPC section 391.The punishment for dacoity is imprisonment for life
or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine under IPC section 395. Dacoity is robbery
committed by 5 or more persons jointly.
The definition includes the attempt to commit dacoity also.
 Five or more persons actually committing robbery is equal to dacoity.
 Five or more persons attempting to commit robbery is equal to dacoity.
 One committing robbery, in addition 4 persons are present and aid in commission is equal
to dacoity.
 One attempting robbery, in addition 4 persons are present and aid in the attempt, is equal
to dacoity.
 The punishment for dacoity is death or life imprisonment or 10 years rigorous
imprisonment and fine.
9.6.1 Aggravated forms of Dacoity

Aggravated forms of dacoity is if the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to
any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person at the time of committing
dacoity. The punishment is rigorous imprisonment for at least 7 years under IPC section 397. If
the offender is armed with any deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit dacoity, the
punishment is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under IPC section 398. The other offences in
connection with dacoity are making preparation for the act of dacoity, for which the punishment
is rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine under IPC section 399. If a person just belongs to
a gang of dacoits, the punishment is imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years
and fine under IPC section 400. People belonging to wandering gang of thieves are also punished
under section 401 of IPC. Further assembling for the purpose of dacoity is punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine under IPC section 402. For instance when an
individual comes out from the bank with money, he/she could be threatened and assaulted for
looting the cash by a group of people who come in a vehicle suddenly is said to be dacoity.
Dacoity is a cognizable offence. It is the crime committed against persons for property. Five or
more persons with armed weapons injure others either by threatening or assaulting them and
forcefully take away from them the properties like vehicles and other valuable materials
9.6.2Characteristics of Dacoity
Among the territories dacoity is high in rural areas, followed by city areas. Dacoities, in rural
areas, are committed by entering the isolated agricultural farm houses.
Dacoits operate in Gangs: Dacoits enter in gangs by the vehicles like lorry or van and assault
the person who looks after sheepfold (a fenced enclosure for sheep), and steal sheep. They also
loot properties like pipes and machines stored in the warehouse of the farms in rural areas
Dacoity also happens in petrol bunks located on highway roads linking city areas. The dacoits in
gang come by vehicles in the name of filling up petrol. If no one is in the vicinity, they suddenly
threaten the cashier with weapons like knife, rifle, etc. and forcefully take away the cash from
the bunks. They are committed with an intention of taking away the valuable things such as cash,
jewels, vehicles, etc. either by threatening or assaulting the owners.
Dacoity is the crime committed against an individual or a group of individuals for properties like
cash, vehicle, etc. either during day or night.
In rural areas, the dacoity is largely committed by a gang of above 7 persons. Their main aim is
to steal the cattle and sheep from cattle and sheep yards. In urban areas dacoity is largely
committed by a group of 6 or more persons who usually loot the passengers in highways. In rural
areas dacoity as an act is practised by a group of people who belong to the same clan/kin group.
This involves old and experienced persons as well as able-bodied youngsters, who are trained in
the art of dacoity. In the cities, young and adult persons, who are under acute stress, attempt to
commit dacoity. Naturally they are from a homogeneous age group and their mean age is less.
Since members of the family as a whole carryout dacoity in rural areas, it is heterogeneous in
terms of age, and consequently the mean age happens to be higher. Dacoits generally loot ready
cash, gold ornaments, and vehicles. In rural areas cattle as well as agricultural products are
looted by dacoits.
9.6.3 Dacoity- Some Facts & Figures
 Maharashtra has reported the highest number of such incidents (793cases) accounting for
18.4% of the total cases reported in the country. Bihar with 540 cases was the next in
order accounting for 12.5% of the total cases in the country. The crime rate was highest
in Meghalaya (2.0) against the national average of 0.4.(NCRB,2013).
 The incidence (3,099) of preparation & assembly to commit dacoity during the year 2012
registered an increase of 68.3% over 2002 level (1,841), an increase of 4.8% over the
quinquennial average of 2007 – 2012, an increase of 7.0% over the previous year (2,895
cases). West Bengal has reported the largest number (875 cases) of such incidence
 The highest incidence of Dacoity at ‘Residential Premises’ (235) was reported from Bihar
followed by Assam (217) and Maharashtra (171). These three states together have
accounted for 43.3% of total 1,439 Dacoity (wherein the property was lost) at
‘Residential Premises’ in the country.
 The highest incidence of Dacoity on ‘Highways’ was reported from Bihar (194) followed
by Odisha (111).
 The maximum number of such cases at ‘Commercial Establishment’ was reported from
Odisha (56) followed by Maharashtra (36) and West Bengal (36).
 The highest incidence of Dacoity at ‘Railways’ (running trains and ‘others’ in Railways)
was reported from Uttar Pradesh (30 cases) followed by Bihar (19 cases) and
Maharashtra (14 cases).
 Amongst mega cities, highest incidence of Dacoity at residential premises was reported
from Bengaluru (14 cases) followed by Patna (13 cases).
 A total of 4,285 incidents of Dacoity at various premises were reported with property lost
worth15, 822.9 lakh at the National level.
Case No - 3
Ramasamy of 47 years old resides with his family in his farmhouse situated in Kangayam of
Erode. In their warehouse, they stored newly bought PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride) pipes that were
to be installed within a day or two for water irrigation in their lands. Ramasamy asked an age old
labourer Murugesan to take care of those pipes in the warehouse. The next day, at midnight, a
gang of seven dacoits entered the farm in a tempo. They parked the vehicle away from the farm
and walked into the warehouse. They broke open the door and assaulted Murugesan. As they
were seven, it was easy for them to remove the pipes from the warehouse and carried away them
in the tempo. Murugesan was unconscious at that time. When he became conscious, he informed
Ramasamy about this dacoity. Ramasamy reported this incident to the police and a case was
booked under section 397 of IPC.
9.7 ROBBERY
Robbery is a felonious crime of taking away the property from a person either by violence or
putting him in fear. Property is stolen away by using force on any person or putting or seeking to
put any person in fear. The theft is said to be robbery if there has to be either violence or the
threat of violence. Theft is named as “robbery” if the thief voluntarily causes or attempts to cause
a) death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or b) fear of instant death, instant hurt, or instant wrongful
restraint while taking away the Property.
Exortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing extortion, puts that person in fear
of instant death, or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint thereby forcing him to part with
his things. If robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, then rigorous
imprisonment for 14 years and fine under the IPC section 392 are awarded. If robbery is an
attempt to commit, the punishment is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine under IPC
section 393. If hurt is caused in committing or attempting to commit robbery, the punishment is
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine under IPC section 394.
Aggravated forms of robbery is if the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt
to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person at the time of committing
robbery. The punishment is rigorous imprisonment for at least 7 years under IPC section 397. If
the offender is armed with any deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit robbery, the
punishment is rigorous imprisonment for at least 5 years under IPC section 398. For instance,
robbery would be where someone is approached in the street, knocked to the ground and their
wallet or hand bag is taken. It is also robbery, to approach someone, threaten him with a knife or
a similar weapon and take his property.
The Chelambra bank robbery in the Malappuram district of Kerala, India is considered to be
one of the biggest and most sensational bank robberies in the crime history of Kerala. In the early
hours of 30 December 2007, the robbers made a hole in the floor of the South Malabar Gramin
Bank and got away with 80 kilograms of gold and 2,500,000 rupees, a total value of 80 million
Indian Rupees. The leader confessed that the crime was inspired by the Bollywood movie
Dhoom. In the movie also, the robbers made a hole in the ground floor of the bank and got away
with the valuables during the new-year event.
Case No -4
Radhika, 19 years old and her father Anbumani, 40 years old, reside in Kovaipudhur residential
area of Coimbatore. Their house has two portions, which are adjacent. They decided to leave one
portion for rent. One day a middle aged man approached them asking for that portion for rent. He
also expressed his desire of seeing around the portion before taking any decision on rent. After
seeing around the house he said that he was quite satisfied with the house. He further told that he
wanted to show the portion to his brother also, who, according to him, was his well-wisher. After
a week’s time the same person accompanied with another person came to Radhika’s house and
asked her to show around the house for them. Radhika had to take care of them alone as her
father was not at home at that time. Since, both of them seemed to be decent and polite, Radhika
didn’t hesitate to show around the house to them. As they went around the house one man
suddenly entered the kitchen and Radhika had no other way but to follow him. The other man
stood at the hall itself. Suddenly the man who was in the kitchen, showed a knife to Radhika.
The other man who stood at the hall locked the front door of the portion and came behind
Radhika and attacked her with iron rod. When Radhika regained her consciousness, she came to
understand that all her jewels and valuable items in their own portion were stolen. She felt
miserable as she had been cheated and robbed by thieves whom she believed as decent men.
Then a case was reported by Radhika’s father, which was filed under section 392 of IPC.
9.8 CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY
Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code ,deals with criminal misappropriation of property. Section
403 says that, whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable
property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine or both criminal misappropriation means dishonest misappropriation or
conversion of movable property which is already in the possession of the offender. In the case of
criminal misappropriation the offender gets the possession of the movable property innocently
but subsequently uses the property dishonestly for his own benefits.
Illustrations
(a) A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing, at any time
when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after
discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an
offence under this section.
(b) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a
book without Z’s express consent. Here, if A was under the impression that he had Z’s implied
consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But, if A
afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A and B, being joint owners of a horse, A takes the horse out of B’s possession, intending to
use it. Here, as A has a right to use the horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it. But, if A
sells the horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of an offence
under this section.
9.9 CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
Criminal breach of trust is ’dishonest misappropriation’ or ’conversion to own use’ another’s

property, which is nothing but the offence of criminal misappropriation defined u/s 403. In
respect of criminal breach of trust, the accused is entrusted with property or with dominion or
control over the property. The offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person
who is entrusted in any manner with property or With dominion over it, dishonestly
misappropriates it, or converts it to his own use, or-dishonestly uses it or disposes it of in
violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged,
or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or
willfully suffers any other person so to do e.g In a case In the case of State of Gujarat vs
Jaswantlal Nathala the government sold cement to the accused only on the condition that it will
be used for construction work. However, a portion of the cement purchased was diverted to a
godown. The accused was sought to be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust. The Supreme
Court held that the expression ‘entrustment’ carries with it the implication that the person
handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues
to be its owner. Further, the person handing over the property must have confidence in the
person taking the property. so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A mere
transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment. If the accused had violated the conditions of
purchase, the only remedy is to prosecute him under law relating to cement control. But no
offence of criminal breach of trust was made out.
In another case the accused, a sub-inspector (SI) of police, had gone to investigate a theft case in
a village. In the evening, he saw one person named Tika Ram coming from the side of the cannal
and hurriedly going towards a field. He appeared to be carrying something in his dhoti folds. The
accused searched him and found a bundle containing currency notes. The accused took the
bundle and later returned it. The amount returned was short by Rs. 250. The Supreme Court held
that the currency notes were handed over to the SI for a particular purpose and Tika Ram had
trusted the accused to return the money once the accused satisfied himself about it. If the accused
had taken the currency notes, it would amount to criminal breach of trust..
In one case the Supreme Court held that when the wife entrusts her stridhana property with the
dominion over that property to her husband or any other member of the family and the husband
or such other member of the family dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or willfully suffers and other person to do so, he commits criminal breach of trust.
9.10 RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

This is the subject-matter of section 411 of the code which prescribes that the receiver of stolen
property shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to 3 years or with
fine or with both. From this it is clear that the receiver \of stolen property is punished in the same
way as the person who actually steals the property vide section 379. The essential requirements
for convicting a person under this section are mainly two, one is dishonest receipt or retention of
the stolen property and second is that he had knowledge at the time of receipt that the property
was obtained in one of the ways as laid down in section 410
 Section 412 deals with dishonestly receiving property in the commission of dacoity.
 Section 413 lays down punishment for a person who habitually deals in stolen property;
 Section 414 punishes the person who assists in concealment of the stolen property.
9.11 CHEATING
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code pertains to the offence of cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property that can be converted to valuable security the essential elements to
attract this offence are as follows:
 Deceit, dishonest or fraudulent intention by representation in word, written form or action

 Inducing another person by any of the above mentioned means to deliver property
 Causing wrongful loss to the cheated person and wrongful gain to the accused.
In the following instances, court judgments have held that the main item in dispute can be
interpreted as ‘property’ so as to attract the offence of cheating under section 420:
 Where a Homeopathy College was set up in India by a Burmese citizen, claiming that his
college had necessary registration and accreditation as per Indian regulations, but it
turned out to be bogus, the court held that it attracted the offence of section 420.
 Where a supplier consigned a small quantity of goods to be delivered to the Railways but
tampered with the Railway receipt to show larger consignments had been delivered, it
was held that the accused was guilty under section 420.
 Where a student writing the IAS exam indicated that he belonged to Scheduled caste and
got an appointment in the cadre, the court held the accused guilty of fraudulent
representation as per section 420, IPC.
9.12 Summary
The lesson presents an overall analysis on property offences under the ambit of IPC. Cases of
Theft, Extortion, Burglary are found more in city and urban areas. Simmel in his work on
‘Metropolis and Mental life’ discusses the consequences of a money economy for social
relationships. Simmel said that money not only meant for depersonalization of social life but
personal freedom. The large cities, heterogeneity and cosmopolitanism require a certain kind of
personality, through intellectual, un-emotive, reserved and detached. This urban personality is
the basic reason for increasing property offences.

Crime in India. 2016. Report by National Crime Records Bureau. Government of India
Jayamala. M. 2008. Trends and Spatial Patterns of Crime in India – A Case Study of a District in
India .Language in India www.languageinindia.com
Sarvaria. S.K. 2008. RA Nelson Indian Penal Code. Chapter XXVII Of Offences Against
Property. LexisNexis.Butterworths Wadhwa. Nagpur
9.14 Model Question

Make a distinction between Theft, Burglary and Dacoity. Discuss their causes and punishments.
Lesson – 10
Public Order Offences: Crime against moral and political order
Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Importance of Public Order
10.3 Some Grave Public Order Problems
10.3.1 Communal Riots
10.3.2 Terrorism
10.3.3 Militancy in the North East
10.3.4 Naxalism
10.4 Causative Factors of Major Public Order Problems
10.5 Crime against moral order
10.5.1Alcohol Abuse
10.5.2 Drug Addiction
10.5.3 Sexual offences
10.6 Summary
10.8 Model question
10.0 Objectives. After going through this lesson you will be able to:
 understand meaning of Public order offences;
 know about political order offences;
 know about crimes against moral order
10.1Introduction
Public order implies a harmonious state of society in which all events conform to the established
law and is synonymous with peace, tranquility and the rule of law. ‘Public disorder’ has several
connotations depending upon the nature of the State. In well-developed societies, governed by
the rule of law, even relatively minor infractions of law may be regarded as a public order
problem. In most liberal democracies only serious disturbances which affect the life would
constitute a breakdown of public order. In autocratic societies, however, even orderly and
peaceful protests and demonstrations against the State are often treated as breaches of public
order.
Public order: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 in order
to meet the situation arising from the Supreme Court’s decision in Romesh Thapar’s case (AIR
1950 SC 124). The expression ‘public order’ connotes the sense of public peace, safety and
tranquility.
Public order crimes are a combination of offenses, some of which have been variously called
vice offenses, consensual offenses, victimless crimes, or even nuisance offenses.
In criminology, public-order crime is defined by Siegel (2004) as "...crime which involves acts
that interfere with the operations of society and the ability of people to function efficiently", i.e.
it is behaviour that has been labeled criminal because it is contrary to shared norms, social
values, and customs.
There are many causes of public disorder. In a pluralistic country like India issues leading to
conflicts sometimes escalate into public disorder. Even demonstrations held on legitimate
grounds can sometimes degenerate into public disorder.
Given our historical inequities on the basis of caste and other social factors, these can easily lead
to conflicts that may degenerate into public disorder. Similarly, divisive impulses based on
ethnicity, religion, region, language and the sharing of natural resources can exacerbate tensions.
With enhanced citizen awareness and assertion, failure in the delivery of services by the State
often leads to frustration manifesting itself in public disorder. This tendency is aggravated by
increasing criminalization of politics and persistent interference in the due process of law. With
increasing globalization and the communications revolution, indigenous and transnational
criminal organizations have acquired enormous resources and power with the capacity to cause
serious breakdown of public order and even undermine the security of India. As opposed to
organized crime, which is motivated by the prospect of illegitimate economic gains, terrorist
groups are activated by real or imagined ideological motives.
They could be homegrown armed groups like Naxalites holding sway in some pockets, or
foreign sponsored secessionist groups indulging in reckless violence and mayhem with the sole
objective of spreading terror. The greatest danger to public order emanates from the conjunction
of foreign sponsored secessionist terrorists with organized crime networks.
10.2 Importance of Public Order

Whatever be the cause of the breakdown of public order, it is imperative that peace and harmony
be maintained. Public order along with the defense of the realm has always been the raison d’etre
of the State throughout history. Emphasis on public order in monarchies and feudal oligarchies
was often a result of the desire to perpetuate the domination of ruling elites. But in a modern,
liberal, democratic, development oriented State; there are other compelling reasons to preserve
public order.
First, peace and order are necessary preconditions for freedom of expression of individuals and
for the resolution of conflicting interests in a democratic society.
Second, violence and disorder necessarily undermine economic growth and development,
perpetuating a vicious cycle of poverty, frustration and violence.
Third, rapid urbanization, which is a necessary concomitant of modernization, tends to promote

impersonal lives and create alienation, thus reducing peer pressure and social control.
Fourth, the State’s constitutional commitment to equitable growth and justice itself may unleash
social tensions, as powerful oligarchies attempt to perpetuate the status quo.
Fifth, rapid economic growth may sometimes aggravate disparities between individuals, groups
and regions leading to escalation of tension and breaches of peace.
Sixth, weak enforcement and failure of the criminal justice system create a culture of lawlessness
posing a major threat to public order.
Finally, organized crime, militancy and terrorism have devastating consequences on the morale
of the public; such a situation may even lead to the unnecessary loss of life as well as serious
economic and political dislocation in an interdependent economy and polity.
Define public order offences
10.3 Some Grave Public Order Problems

10.3.1 Communal Riots
Communalism in a broad sense implies blind allegiance to one’s own communal group–
religious, linguistic or ethnic – rather than to the larger society or to the nation as a whole. In its
extreme form, communalism manifests itself in hatred towards groups perceived as hostile,
ultimately leading to violent attacks on other communities. General amity and the peaceful
coexistence of various faiths in India have been the envy of the civilized world. Nonetheless
given the diversity of our society and our complex historical baggage, we are often beset with
communal tensions which occasionally erupt into violence. At times, either bigoted and
fundamentalist leadership, or unscrupulous political operators with an eye on short term electoral
advantage, have deliberately and maliciously engineered communal passions, hatred and even
violence to achieve sectarian polarization. Most of the communal flare-ups have been between
Hindus and Muslims, though conflicts involving other communities have also occasionally
occurred. Similarly, there have been other ethnic clashes from time to time.
In the post-Independence era, India has faced several instances of large scale public disorder,
starting with the communal conflagration during Partition. Even now communal riots pose a
grave threat to peace and order. The 1950s witnessed violent linguistic riots in some parts of the
country. There have been violent secessionist movements in the North- East, Punjab and Jammu
and Kashmir. There are numerous instances of agrarian, labour and student unrest. The last
decade has seen an upsurge of violence by the left wing extremists, who have extended their
influence over large tribal areas. Urbanization has brought to the fore the shortcomings in the
delivery of basic services, which at times, results in violent agitations. With improving
awareness levels, conflicts over sharing of resources are increasing in rural and tribal areas.
Organized groups, especially those concerned with the supply of essential services, have, on
occasion, caused major public disorder by resorting to agitation, obstruction and violence. While
some communal riots could be spontaneous, many are organized and preplanned. Even in the
case of spontaneous riots it is the underlying tensions between the communities, which flare up
at the slightest provocation. Anti-Sikh riots in Delhi 1984, the Gujarat riots in 2002 are a big blot
on Indian democracy.
10.3.2 Terrorism
Terrorism has been defined as the illegal use of force or violence against people to create a wave
of terror with the intention of achieving certain political or sectarian objectives.
The Categories of Terrorism

The Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism, which was directed by Cooper, divided terrorism
into six categories:
1. Civil disorders: “a form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal
functioning of the community.”
2. Political terrorism: “violent criminal behavior designed primarily to generate fear in the
community, or a substantial segment of it, for political purposes.”
3. Nonpolitical terrorism: terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but that exhibits
“conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end
is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.”
4. Quasi terrorism: “those activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that is
similar in form and method to true terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient.”
It is not the main purpose of the quasi terrorists “to induce terror in the instant victim,” as in the
case of true terrorism. Typically, the fleeing felon who takes a hostage is a quasi terrorist, whose
methods are similar to those of the true terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.
5. Limited political terrorism: “acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political
motives but which is not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the State.” Limited
political terrorism differs from real terrorism in the former’s lack of a revolutionary approach.
6. Official or state terrorism: activities carried out by “nations whose rule is based upon fear and
oppression that reach terrorist proportions.”
Terrorism may consist of acts or threats or both.
The border State of Jammu and Kashmir and some parts of the North East have witnessed
prolonged terrorist activities. Several acts of terror in recent years – hijacking of an aircraft
(1999), attacks on the Parliament in New Delhi (2001), on Akshardham Temple in Gujarat
(2002), and at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (2005), bomb blasts in market places in
Delhi (2005) and in Varanasi (2006), serial bomb blasts in Mumbai (2006) and Malegaon (2006),
massacre of labourers in Upper Assam (2007),Mumbai (26/11) etc. – all demonstrate that
terrorism is not confined to a few pockets and that almost every part of the country is vulnerable.
Even when the proximate cause of action or the political objective of the terror group is limited
to a part of the country, the existence of sleeper cells, the spread of modern communications, an
integrated economy and the increasing use of terror technology and tactics, have made it easy for
the merchants of terror to spread their tentacles all over the country. As a result, terrorism is not
merely a public order problem but has emerged as a grave threat to national security as well.
An analysis of some of the recent terrorist attacks indicates that terrorist organizations have used
the existing organized crime networks. Terrorist groups and these crime syndicates have
international links with similar organizations and are supported by foreign agencies inimical to
our interests. Their activities are being financed through international money laundering and
drug trafficking thus creating an intricate web of crime, terror and trafficking in arms and drugs.
Experience in some of the chronically insurgency affected states shows that terrorist outfits with
initial political objectives sooner or later degenerate into mercenary groups.
India is among the worst victims of terrorist violence in recent decades. In the face of this
massive threat, despite severe limitations, the Indian State responded with a reasonable degree of
success. Extra-territorial sponsorship of terrorism, porous borders, diplomatic complexities in
dealing with safe havens across the border and the deficiencies in our own criminal justice
system have made the task of countering terrorism extremely arduous and complex. And yet the
velour and sacrifice of our security forces, the alertness and high degree of cohesion among
various agencies, a broad political consensus backed by strong public opinion, democratic
legitimacy of the State and the economic and social strengths that form the bedrock of our nation
have greatly helped us withstand the onslaught of terror. The Indian response to terrorism has
had significant success. Terrorism was totally eliminated from Punjab; Mizoram, which at one
point of time was infested with insurgency, is now a peaceful state; there has been a decline in
violence in Jammu and Kashmir, too. Several attempts of terrorists have been thwarted by timely
action in many parts of the country.
10.3.3 Militancy in the North East

The North East region has more than 200 ethnically diverse groups with distinct languages,
dialects and socio-cultural identities. Some parts of this region have been suffering from
militancy for several decades. Militancy in the region started with the Naga movement way back
in the early 1950s and rose to serious levels in Manipur in the 1960s. Large scale immigration
into Tripura gave birth to militancy there in the 1960s. Militancy in Assam, on the ‘foreigner’s
issue’, has multiplied and spread to many new areas.
The numerous militant movements in the region have different objectives. A few movements
seek outright secession from the Indian Union, some aspire for separate
Statehood while others demand greater autonomy within the existing State. Extortion and
abduction are frequently resorted to by some of the militant groups. Apart from causing huge
loss of human lives, militancy has hampered economic development of the region. The situation
is compounded by the involvement of some foreign intelligence agencies, which are providing
material support to the insurgents. Besides, the long porous international borders have facilitated
the movement of these groups and the smuggling of arms. Corruption, economic deprivation and
unemployment are driving segments of youth into the fold of militant organizations. Ad hoc
solutions resulting in widely varying degrees of ‘autonomy’ to different bodies – sometimes
within a single state – have led to competitive demands and when they are not met, to alienation
and violence.
Another intractable problem has been created by migration from Bangladesh. Initially, this
migration represented movement of peasants from the over populated eastern districts of Bengal
to the sparsely populated and fertile and fallow Brahmaputra valley constituting Assam. The
redrawing of national boundaries following Partition provided an impetus to migrants from East
Pakistan for reasons of personal safety to settle in Assam, where their presence gave rise to
ethnic and linguistic tensions. This was followed by fresh influx of all communities due to the
agrarian crisis in East Pakistan. This migration has continued even after the emergence of
Bangladesh. The fear among the local populace that this immigrant population would reduce
them to a minority, as has in fact happened in some parts, has fueled militancy in the region.
Numerous militant groups are active in different North-Eastern states, particularly in Assam,
Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura.
10.3.4 Naxalism
Naxalism is the name given to radical, violent left wing extremism. This movement took birth in
Naxalbari in West Bengal in the 1960s. Naxalites adopted a policy of annihilation of their ‘class
enemies’. This localized movement was effectively dealt with by the Government. However, in
recent years there has been a spread of the Naxalite influence in several states. It has come down
significantly in Andhra Pradesh in terms of both incidents and casualties but Chhattisgarh has
seen higher levels of violence and casualties. It is also reported that Naxal groups have been
trying to spread to Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand. Apart from indulging in
violence, Naxalites continue to hold Jan-Adalats, a mechanism to dispense crude and instant
justice.
Naxalism has become an issue of major concern. The problems of poverty and alienation, the
demand of territorial rights and displacement from traditional forest habitats have aggravated the
problem. Besides, unequal sharing of benefits of exploitation of resources has also helped create
a fertile breeding ground for the growth of this menace. Naxalites exploit local grievances and
take advantage of the sufferings of the deprived sections, gaining local support and recruiting
cadres. They have also successfully mobilized the support of some civil society groups to further
their cause overtly. It is reported that they have been able to establish trans-border linkages with
likeminded extremist groups for obtaining explosives and arms as also for organizing training for
their own cadres. These extremists often do not allow major development of the area including
infrastructure development for fear of losing their hold over the people. They have also been
making use of terror tactics to suppress any opposition and to demoralize the civil
administration.
10.4 Causative Factors of Major Public Order Problems

Any serious analysis of public order should recognize the inextricable link between crime control
and public order. Deterioration in the ‘crime situation’ adversely affects public order and vice
versa. Unchecked, widespread crime creates a culture of lawlessness. A society, which does not
deal with crime swiftly and effectively, in effect rewards criminals and makes life insecure for
innocent law abiding citizens. If such a climate persists, more and more people tend to perceive
that crime pays, and that there is no penalty or risk attached to it. This can only lead to more
crime. Such a climate is conducive to easy recourse to violence and results in the breakdown of
public order.
The main causes of public order offences are-
i. Social: In India, the historical social structures and ‘hierarchy’ has been a root cause for social
unrest. Caste has been a fundamental divisive factor in our society.
ii. Communal: Religious orthodoxy and blind adherence to extreme viewpoints is another
fundamental cause for unrest. In India, the existence of every religion side by side has been the
matter of strength in our multi-cultural system but fringe elements often create unrest.
iii. Economic: Underdevelopment is arguably a cause of tension. The desire to improve one’s
position in competition with others, itself creates stress and in India, with 250 million people
below the poverty line, the strain is significant.
iv. Administrative: The administrative machinery is not always perceived by people to be
objective and fair. Slackness in delivery of services, lethargy in enforcement of laws is at times a
major reason for frustration in citizens. Corrupt and self-seeking behaviour of some officials
compounds the problem further. One of the major causative factors for the eruption of public
disorder is the inadequacy of the administration in enforcing the legitimate constitutional,
statutory and traditional rights of citizens leading to serious discontentment among them.
v. Political: In a democratic system, divergent political viewpoints can lead to tension. T The
problem becomes more problematic when a section of the political leaders try to use the
administration for furthering their own political agenda. The increasing propensity to use public
office for private gain, unwarranted interference in crime investigation and day to day
functioning of police, short-term populism at the cost of durable solutions, complexities of a
federal polity – all these make it difficult to address some of the growing threats to public order.
Added to this is the relatively low importance attached to public order in our political discourse.
All these contribute to breakdown of the public order fabric.
10.5 Crimes against moral order: Some activities are criminalized due to their tendency to
disturb the peace, create public nuisance, or threaten a sense of public morality. The crime of
disorderly conduct punishes the disturbance of peace, public morals, or public decency. Public
indecency is a crime viewed to diminish the quality of life in the area surrounding the crime. The
goal of statutes prohibiting such behavior is to maintain or improve the quality of life for the
people inhabiting that area. Publicly indecent behavior might include such acts as would cause
the deterioration of the physical appearance of a neighborhood, or behavior which would
encourage an increase in undesirable societal elements in a given area and in turn affect such
things as decrease in property values.
It is in this context Sex offences and substance abuse are also included under Public order
crime.
10.5.1 Alcohol Abuse Of all the substances used to alter mood and consciousness, alcohol is the
most directly linked to crime, especially violent crime (Martin, 2001). It has been estimated that
at least 70% of American prison inmates (Wanberg & Milkman, 1998) and 60% of British
inmates (McMurren, 2003) are alcohol and/or drug addicted. Alcohol is linked to about 110,000
deaths a year versus the “mere” 19,000 fatalities attributable to other drugs (Robinson, 2005),
although this should be interpreted in light of the fact that many more people drink alcohol than
take illicit drugs.
Alcoholism and violent Behavior

Heavy alcohol intake certainly has a greater effect on behavior and it is considered as a cause of
antisocial acts. Studies overwhelmingly indicate that there is a strong link between the
consumption of alcohol and violent acts. Over one-third of victims of rapes or sexual assaults
report that the offender was drinking at the time of the act. (Greenfeld,1998) It is estimated that
32 to 50 percent of homicides are preceded by alcohol consumption by the perpetrator.
Drunk Driving
Traffic fatalities caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol are another evil caused by
the “beast in the bottle.” Many people used to consider deaths due to drunk drivers as
“accidents” rather than “crimes”. Little or no recorded data are available on drink driving in
India. A recent survey about drinking and driving in Delhi found that more than 45% vehicles
are driven by drivers who had consumed alcoholic drinks. Youngsters particularly students of 9th
and 10th standards and college students mix drink with driving for “a high” or exhilaration and
meet with accidents. “Speed thrills but kills is very much applicable to this class of drivers. The
incidence of drink driving practices is increasing among the students and younger professional
drivers. Drink driving and road accidents among women have also increased.
A study reported under the title “High spirits take toll on Bangalore roads” reveals that
driving under the influence of alcohol is common among Bangalore residents on Saturdays and
Sundays leading to accidents, death.
The pub capital of India - Bangalore city, reports the highest number of road accident deaths
on weekends between 6.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. and there is little reason to believe that this could
be for any reason other than drink driving, say the city police, 579 road accident deaths in 1993,
106 were on Saturday nights and an average of 60-90 deaths were reported on the other days of
the week. In 1994, there were 91 deaths on Sundays, 89 on Saturdays and an average of 70-80 on
weekdays.
10.5.2Drug Addiction
Use of drugs for non-medical reasons results in drug addiction. A survey conducted in 2003-
2004 by Narcotics Control Bureau found that India has at least four million drug addicts.
The most common drugs used in India are cannabis, hashish, opium and heroin. Drug abuse
occurs most frequently among young people in the 15-35 age groups. It thus includes those who
have entered or who are just about to enter the workforce. Given the high unemployment rates in
many countries, entry into the workforce is often a major problem. Consumption of illicit drugs
limits chances of entering or remaining in the workforce, while frustration caused by failure to
find adequate employment favours drug consumption, thus creating a vicious circle.
Does Drug Abuse Cause Crime?
A number of different explanatory models for the drugs–crime nexus have been proposed: crime
leads to drugs; drugs lead to crime; drugs and crime are correlated through co-occurrence. An
increasingly common approach in empirical studies has been to apply the tripartite conceptual
framework proposed by Goldstein for the relationship between drugs and crime. In this model,
drugs lead to violence through an integration of the psychopharmacological, economic
compulsive and systemic models.
Although it may not encompass all the possible relationships between drugs and crime, this
approach does provide a useful conceptual framework for the analysis of drug-related crime.
According to the psychopharmacological model, the acute or chronic use of drugs may result in
aggression and violence. The effects of such drugs include excitability, irritability, fear/paranoia,
disinhibition, drastic mood swings, cognitive distortions and impaired judgment, any of which
may lead to criminal behaviour such as sexual assault, robbery or mugging.
According to Economic-compulsive crimes, dependence on an expensive substance can lead

users to engage in criminal acts to obtain the money they use to fund their drug habit. They may
resort to both consensual crimes, such as drug selling or prostitution and acquisitive crimes (e.g.
shoplifting, robbery, burglary).
Systemic criminality refers mainly to violent acts (e.g. assaults, homicides) committed within
the functioning of illicit drug markets, as part of the business of drug supply, distribution and
use. Violence as a strategy of control is used in various situations including territorial disputes,
punishment for fraud, debt collection and clashes with the police .In drug production and transit
countries where the rule of law is challenged, systemic crimes may also encompass for example,
corruption of businesses, governments and banking systems or crimes against humanity by drug
traffickers.
On the basis of above models it can be stated that Drugs and crime are related in several ways.
Illicit production, manufacture, distribution, possession and consumption are many kinds of
criminal activities. Drug-related crime occurs primarily in the form of trafficking-related activity,
including violent conflicts among trafficking groups competing for increased market share. It
also results from the need of drug consumers to finance their addiction through theft and
prostitution.
10.5.3 Sexual offences Sexual offences can broadly be classified into following heads-
 Obscenity and indecent representation of women
 Eve-teasing
 Sexual harassment
 Molestation and indecent assault
 Immoral Trafficking
 Rape
Obscenity and indecent representation of women
The sexual representation of women in cross-culture is an issue of grave concern. Obscenity is a

threat to the purity of women’s sexuality and her modesty. It tends deflect an active involvement
and participation so that men cannot be held to be at fault. Blame, however, lies with those who
produce these obscene representations including the women who appear in it. Intelligent, well
built and groomed, half clad women on the cover page of Cosmopolitan or Sports Illustrated-
swimming suit issue all over the world provokes more sexuality than bare adivasi rustic females.
Sex and violence in movies and media and erotic lucid details in best sellers or those which sell
most is the material available to every citizen from rickshaw-pullers students to CEOs.
Eve-teasing,
It is becoming common amongst teenagers with urbanization and is morally committed in

crowded places like college campus, public transport, fairs and fetes. These expressions are a
result of sadistic tendencies and sick mentality of those human beings who cannot control their
urges of indecently act towards fellow female beings in society. The reactions of the female give
them the pleasure they had sought by violating the privacy of another individual. The male being
feels elated about his superiority; he boasts about his acts amongst his peer group and thinks that
he has achieved something great and unusual.
Sexual harassment
Sexual harassment contains elements of coercion, threat, and/or unwanted attention in a non-
reciprocal relationship. In the University, sexual harassment of women by male faculty members
undermines women as students or co-workers. Sexual harassment in this case may, therefore,
take the following forms when man in position of control, influence or affect a
woman’s job, career makes use of his authority and power to coerce the woman into sexual
relations or to punish her refusal. In these cases the superior tends to take advantage of his
position and the economic pressure leads to silent suffering.
Where in cases of sexual harassment men accused and found guilty of sexual harassment are
professors and teachers, it becomes a serious issue and they should be suspended from their jobs
or demoted from their posts, as students look up to their teachers as mentors and guides who are
pillars of inspiration and place them on a pedestal and believe that they can do no wrong.
Sexual harassment at the workplace may include:
1. Verbal harassment of abuse.
2. Subtle pressure for sexual favors.
3. Sexist comments about the student’s clothing, body or sexual activities.
4. Unnecessary patting or pinching.

5. Leering or ogling at a woman’s body.
6. Constant brushing against a women’s body.
7. Demanding sexual favors accompanied by implied or overt threats concerning one’s job,
marks, letters of physical assault.
Molestation and indecent assault
Molestation of a female particularly of tender age is a greater evil as her body is immature, her
sexual powers are still dormant and she has not developed a sense of awareness of her sexuality.
But nevertheless from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is so inherent in her being
an individual of the fairer sex which is violated by such acts and leaves deep scars on her
memory. These acts are committed by more mature male members or known elders on females
who find it difficult to understand the motive behind such acts of violence and are unable to
communicate and express their anguish.
Immoral trafficking
The Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 remains practically in
suspended animation. There has been an alarming increase in trading of women. A woman can
be purchased in the open market for half the price of a buffalo. Ashwini Sarin, an Indian Express
Correspondent reported the purchase of Kamla, a mother of six children from the circuit house
for two thousand rupees only. A large area of Dholpur provides girls in abundance for sale. The
plight of homeless girls in protection homes, which are meant for their rehabilitation but where
they are, treated inhumanly and as commodities is pitiable.
Rape
Rape is the most serious violation of a person’s body because it deprives the victims of both
physical and emotional privacy and autonomy. When the offence of rape occurs, the victim’s
sense of self as well as her body is abused without consent. She loses her most basic human need
right: Control of her physical and emotional of self. The victim’s psychological response to rape
primarily reflects her reaction to violation of self. Therefore, they deserve to be treated with
dignity and compassion and assured that their decision of getting the accused to the book is
respected.
10.6 Summary:
The presence of public order crimes encourages a climate of general disrespect for the law. Many
individuals choose to violate public order laws, because they are easily violable, and there is no
victim to complain. This encourages disrespect for the law, including disrespect for laws
involving crimes with victims. Public order crimes often pertain to behavior engaged in
especially by discernible classes of individuals within society (racial minorities, women, youth,
poor people), and result in the criminalization or stigmatization of those classes, as well as
resentment from those classes against the laws, against the government, or against society. .
10.7 Further readings:
Conklin, John E. (1997). Criminology. 6th edition. Allyn & Bacon.
Schur, Edwin M. (1965) Crimes Without Victims: Deviant Behavior and Public Policy. Prentice
Hall.
10.8 Model question

What is Public order offences? How these can be curbed ?
Lesson 11
White collar Crime
Structure
11.0Objectives
11.1Introduction
11.2 Characteristics of White-Collar Crime
11.3 Extent of White-Collar Crime
11.4 Causes of White-Collar crime
11.5 Theoretical explanation
11.6 Types of White Collar crime
11.7 Consequences of White-Collar Crime
11.8 The Control of White-Collar crime
11.9 Summary
11.11 Model Question
11.0 Objectives
After going through this lesson, you will be able to
 know the meaning and characteristics of white collar Crime

 identify the causes of white collar Crime
 explain types of white collar Crime
 understand the consequences of white collar Crime
11.1 Introduction
The concept of white-collar crime was first conceived by Edward Alsworth Ross (1907). Ross in
Sin and Society, focused on businessmen who engaged in harmful acts under the mask of
respectability. Ross further wrote that the criminaloid is “society’s most dangerous foe, more
redoubtable by far than the plain criminal, because he sports the livery of virtue and operates on
a titanic scale.”
Building on these ideas Sutherland used the term “white-collar criminaloid.” He called attention
to the fact that crimes were not committed only by members of the lower class and defined
white-collar crime as “... a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status
in the course of his occupation.” Sutherland regarded the respectable social status of its
perpetrators as the defining characteristic of white-collar crime. Fundamental to this approach is
belief that the power and status of its perpetrators is the essential quality of white-collar crime.
As Edelhertz (1970) puts it, a white-collar crime is “an illegal act or series of illegal acts
committed by nonphysical means and by concealment or guile, to obtain money or property, to
avoid the payment or loss of money or property, or to obtain business or personal advantage.” In
the process of constructing crime-based definitions, the respectable status of those who commit
white-collar crime disappears or loses analytic significance. Thus, Edelhertz (1970) makes clear
his belief that “the character of white-collar crime must be found in its modus operandi and its
objectives rather than in the nature of the offenders.”
In everyday usage, white-collar crime is understood and used to denote a type of crime and that
differs fundamentally from street crime. Street crimes typically are committed by confronting
victims or entering their homes or businesses, but most white-collar crimes are committed by
using mask, deceit, or misrepresentation to exploit the situation.
11.2 Characteristics of White-Collar Crime
Sutherland (1940) made several important observations:
(1) “respectable” middle- and upper-class persons commit acts which are costly both financially
and in terms of loss of life and limb and should thus be considered “crime”;
(2) these acts of white-collar crime are committed as a result of one’s involvement in a business
or occupation;
(3) white-collar crime is more prevalent in some industries than others;
(4) within branches of the same industry or business, some firms are more involved in white-
collar offenses than others;
(5) neither conventional street crime nor white-collar crime can be attributed to factors such as
poverty or economic deprivation, or to the socio- or psychopathic attributes of involved
individuals;
(6) the factors that explain lower- or working-class crime are the same as those that account for
white-collar offending;
and (7) all crime must be learned and this learning takes place though contact with others and
their “definitions” of the law.
White-collar crime can be found in all types of businesses, industries, occupations, and
professions. Hence, it comes in a large variety of forms and styles. All white collar crimes,
however, share certain characteristics and are committed using particular techniques. These
characteristics and techniques distinguish white-collar crimes from most forms of traditional
street crime.
According to Benson, three characteristics of white-collar crime are particularly important:
(1) The offender has legitimate access to the target or victim of the crime on the basis of an
occupational position;
(2) the offender is spatially separated from the victim; and
(3) the offender’s actions have a superficial appearance of legality.
11.3 Extent of White-Collar Crime
Determining the extent of white-collar crime is no simple task. Two factors make it particularly
difficult to accurately determine how often white-collar crimes occur. First, many white-collar
crimes are not reported to formal response agencies. One study found that just one third of white-
collar crime victims notify the authorities about their victimization (Kane & Wall, 2006). When
individuals are victims of white-collar crimes, they may not report the victimization because of
shame, concerns that reporting will be futile, or a general denial that the victimization was
actually criminal. When businesses or companies are victims, they may refrain from reporting
out of concern about the negative publicity that comes along with “being duped” by an
employee. If victims are not willing to report their victimization, their victimization experiences
will not be included in official statistics.
A second factor that makes it difficult to determine the extent of white-collar crime has to do
with the conceptual ambiguity surrounding the concept. Depending on how one defines white-
collar crime, one would find different estimates about the extent of white-collar crime.
White collar crimes are increasing all over the world. White collar crime now affects more
Americans than all other forms of crime combined, according to the new report published by the
National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C). Unfortunately in the last few years, India has seen
an alarming rise in white collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic
structure. These cases are nothing but private gain at the cost of public and lead to economic
disaster.
Most recent examples of white collar crime in India are ICICI Bank,Punjab National Bank and
Yes Bank. The Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India and Central
Bureau of Investigation has filed fraud against Chanda Kochhar, the erstwhile CEO of ICICI
Bank for breach of provisions relating to the Code of Conduct and regulatory provisions relating
to conflict of interest. Punjab National Bank has also faced with a USD 2 Billion fraud involving
diamantaire Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi. The investigation revealed 54 officials of PNB
ranging from clerks to senior managers were involved in the fraud. Yes Bank has used public
money to buy DHFL debentures worth Rs 3,700 crore. DHFL gave Rs 600 crore to DoIT
Ventures as kickbacks, and the collateral was only Rs 40 crore for the transaction.Yes Bank’s
then-chairman, Rana Kapoor had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the promoters of DHFL
to defraud public money.
11.4 Causes of White-collar crime
According to Dr. Yusof Nook (1993) and Joseph Eby Ruin (1996), there are 3 main causes of
white-collar crime:
1. Opportunities to commit crime,
2. Situational pressures on the individuals, and
3. Issues pertaining to integrity.
A decision to commit fraud is known to be influenced by the interaction of all these three causes.
Opportunities include increasing individual knowledge of a company’s operations, advancing to
a position of trust, and becoming the only individual who knows a particular procedure (for
example, correcting or modifying a computer programme). An organization could also provide
opportunities for its staff to commit fraud by having a complex structure, allowing related party
transactions; condoning weak internal control systems policies and procedures; or by frequently
switching its legal or accounting firms.
Situational pressures refer to the immediate pressures a person experiences within his
environment, and the most overwhelming of all situational pressures are the unusually high
personal debts or financial losses. Situational pressures might also be generated by official
directives from leaders in the organization to achieve unrealistic performance objectives at any
cost, or even by strong peer group influences. There are times when situational pressures
encourage people to perpetrate fraud for their corporation rather than against their corporation
such as the threat of losing a business license, delisting from the stock exchange, loss of
employment or a cash shortage.
Personal integrity factors refer to each individual’s personal code of ethics. While this element
appears to be a straightforward determination of a person’s honesty, the issue is actually more
complex than it seems. A person ought to acquire a general definition of honest and dishonest
behaviour, and know which principles to adopt when developing a general trait of honesty. On
top of that, a person needs to be consistently reinforced for honest behaviour before internalizing
a standard of honesty and being intrinsically rewarded for honest conduct.
Define White collar crimes?
11.5 Theoretical explanation
Different theories such as control theory, strain theory, and differential association/social
learning theory help in understanding white-collar crimes.
Control Theory
Earlier versions of social control theory suggested that individuals committed crimes not because
of the strength of forces driving them to do so, but rather they committed crimes because of the
weakness of forces restraining them from doing so (Matza, 1964; Nye, 1958; Reiss, 1951).
Hirschi (1969) argued that all individuals were free to engage in delinquent acts, but it was their
strong bonds to conventional social groups (e.g., school, family, peers, etc.) that restrained them
from doing so. Hirschi (1969) contended that these bonds were composed of four interrelated
elements:
 attachments to conventional others,

 commitments to conventional lines of action,
 involvements in conventional activities, and
 beliefs in a common value system.
The stronger an individual’s bonds to these conventional others, the less likely they would be to
engage in delinquent/criminal activity.
When looking at white-collar crime in terms of the original conceptualization of control theory,
one might expect the theory to have the opposite effects on this type of crime than it would on
street crime. For example, if a CEO is strongly bonded to his/her company (a conventional
other), he/she may be more likely to engage in white-collar offending in order to see the
company succeed. However, it has been suggested that control theory does indeed work for
white-collar crime, the emphasis of the main socializing agent just needs to be shifted away from
society and placed on the corporation; in essence, we must view the corporation as a society in
and of itself.
Differential Association/Social Learning Theory

Sutherland’s (1947) differential association theory consisted of nine formal propositions about
how criminal behavior was learned. According to Sutherland, deviant behaviors are learned
through social interactions with intimate others. These learned behaviors include techniques of
engaging in the crime, specific motivations, and rationalizations, which are related to favorable
or unfavorable definitions of the law. Furthermore, Sutherland (1947) suggested that these
differential associations help explain the constructed “needs” and “values” associated with
criminal behavior, and they may vary in frequency, duration, and intensity.Burgess and Akers
(1966) have reformulated Sutherland’s differential association theory by adding an operant
conditioning perspective to more precisely explain how deviant definitions were learned.
Differential association/social learning has a direct bearing on white collar crime; definitions
favorable to offending could be learned either through their educational process, or through
associations with others within the same industry. This may explain why studies have found that
certain industries tended to have more violators than others. Chirayath et al. (2002) have
suggested that corporate criminal behavior is learned through socialization with competitors and
associates; “The commission of corporate crime occurs through the internalization of criminal
corporate goals or through the use of deviant means in accomplishing conventional corporate
goals” (2002:132). Not only are techniques of offending learned through these associations, but
so are the rationalizations behind them.
Strain Theories
Classic strain theories (Merton, 1938; Cohen, 1955; Cloward and Ohlin, 1960) are argued to be
incompatible with the idea of corporate crime because of its focus on lower class populations.
Specifically, Merton (1938) focused on the American cultural value that all individuals had equal
opportunity to acquire wealth and even though not everyone would achieve this higher wealth,
all were expected to try. Merton argued that the poor were the ones who would suffer the most
from this disjunction between wanting wealth and being unable to acquire it and this blocked
access to legitimate means would produce feelings of stress, anger, frustration, or rebellion that
could ultimately lead to deviant/criminal acts.
In the white-collar realm, some have expressed the idea of strain in terms of the “fear of falling,”
or the fear of losing what one has worked so hard to earn. However, if one were to shift the focus
of strain theory away from society and the individual (micro) and place it on the industry and
company (macro) respectively, then one might expect that poorly performing firms would be
more likely to experience strain and therefore more likely to engage in deviant/criminal activity
than the high performance firms. Baucus and Near (1991) found that firms that were performing
moderately well or good were more likely to engage in crime. Jamieson (1994) found that even
though poorly performing firms were more likely to engage in antitrust activities, it was the
relatively successful companies that were more likely to be found guilty. However, by their very
nature, corporations are strongly goal-oriented and concerned with performance therefore all
corporations, regardless of their performance level may experience strains from wanting or
expecting to achieve more.
The most important theoretical implication of white-collar crime is that it presents a problem
almost exclusively sociological, or at least socio-legal, in nature. Regardless of whether such
deviation is "really" crime, it is a highly-significant social problem, reaching to the broadest, but
in a way most basic, of our culture patterns. It cannot be explained by personality types,
psychopathy, broken homes, or the host of other "deprivation" hypotheses. In order to
comprehend it at all, a fundamental knowledge of class structure, values, roles and statuses, and
the many other essentially social processes and concepts is needed.
11.6 Types of White collar crime
White-collar crime comes in a variety of forms and can be found in every industry, profession,
and occupation.
Edelhertz’s Typology
Edelhertz’s typology of white collar crime details a variety of offenses:
A. Crimes committed in the course of their occupations by those operating inside business,
government, or other establishments in violation of their duty of loyalty and fidelity to employer
or client.
1. Commercial bribery and kickbacks, i.e., by and to buyers, insurance adjusters, contracting
officers, quality inspectors, government inspectors and auditors, etc.
2. Bank violations by bank officers, employees, and directors
3. Embezzlement or self-dealing by business or union officers and employees
4. Securities fraud by insiders trading to their advantage by the use of special knowledge
5. Employee petty larceny and expense account fraud
6. Frauds by computer, causing unauthorized payments
7. “Sweetheart contracts” entered into by union officers
8. Embezzlement or self-dealing by attorneys, trustees, and fiduciaries
9. Fraud against the government:
a. Padding of payrolls
b. Conflict of interest
c. False travel, expense, or per diem claims
B. Crimes incidental to and in furtherance of business operations, but not the central purpose of
the business
1. Tax violations
2. Antitrust violations
3. Commercial bribery of another’s employee, officer, or fiduciary (including union officers)
4. Food and drug violations
5. False weights and measures by retailers
6. Violations of Truth-in-Lending Act by misrepresentation of credit terms and prices
7. Submission or publication of false financial statements to obtain credit
8. Use of fictitious or overvalued collateral
9. Check kiting to obtain operating capital on short-term financing
10. Securities Act violations, i.e., sale of non-registered securities to obtain operating capital,
false proxy statements, manipulation of market to support corporate credit or access to capital
markets, etc.
11. Collusion between physicians and pharmacists to cause the writing of unnecessary
prescriptions
12. Dispensing by pharmacists in violation of law, excluding narcotics trafficking
13. Immigration fraud in support of employment agency operations to provide domestics
14. Housing code violations by landlords
15. Deceptive advertising
16. Fraud against the government:
a. False claims
b. False statements
(1) Statements made to induce contracts
(2) Aiding fraud
(3) Housing fraud

(4) Small Business Administration fraud, such as bootstrapping, self-dealing, cross dealing, etc.,
or obtaining direct loans by use of false financial statements
c. Moving contracts in urban renewal
17. Labor violations
18. Commercial espionage
We have grouped white-collar crimes in five major forms i.e. antitrust violations, securities
violations, consumer fraud, health care fraud, and environmental offenses.
Antitrust Violations
Antitrust violation can be divided into two broad groups: restrictive trade agreements, and
monopolies or monopolistic practices. Restrictive trade agreements involve an illegal agreement
or understanding between competitors in an industry to restrict how the industry works. Two
examples of restrictive trade agreements are price fixing and market sharing or division. Price
fixing refers to agreements between competitors to set prices at a certain level. For example, if
wheat producers get together and agree among themselves to charge a set price for the wheat,
that is price fixing. Market sharing occurs when competitors get together and divide up an area,
so that only one of them operates in any one area at a time. For example, two paving contractors
might divide up a town so that one takes the east side and the other the west side of town. These
sorts of agreements are illegal because they restrain trade.
Monopolies and monopolistic practices involve unfair attempts to corner a market or to drive out
competitors from a marketplace. A monopoly is said to exist if one company controls an entire
market, but a company can have monopolistic control even though it has competitors if it
controls a large enough share of a market. Microsoft’s Windows operating system, for example,
was declared a monopoly even though there are other operating systems available. The other
systems have such a small market share and Windows has such a large share that it effectively
controls the market.
Securities Violations
A security is evidence of ownership, creditorship, or debt. It is a piece of paper, or an account

number, or something that indicates that someone has a financial interest or stake in an economic
undertaking. For example, stocks, bonds, shares in a mutual fund, promissory notes, and
government savings bonds are all securities. Publicly traded securities are bought and sold on
exchanges, such as the Stock Exchange of India.
There are five major types of security offenses.
Misrepresentation involves lying about the value or condition of a security.

Stock manipulation occurs when an individual or a group of individuals attempts to artificially
manipulate the price of a security.
Misappropriation is an offense committed by brokers or other financial advisors who take

money that their clients have given them to invest and misappropriate it for their own use.
Insider trading is perhaps the most publicized security offense. It arises when people trade on the
basis of inside, nonpublic information. It is illegal for insiders to buy or sell stock on the basis of
information that is not available to the public.
Finally, in an investment scheme, the perpetrator tricks people into investing money in an
undertaking or security by falsely promising investors that they will receive a high rate of return
on their investment. In reality, the undertaking has little or no chance of paying off, and the
perpetrator simply makes off with the investors’ money. For example, Chit Funds.
Consumer Fraud
Consumer fraud is one of the most common forms of white-collar crime. It involves the use of
deceit or deception in the marketing and selling of goods or services. This offense usually
involves the deliberate use of false, deceptive, or misleading statements about the cost, quality,
or effectiveness of a product or service. Consumer fraud offenders are drawn from all types of
businesses and represent a continuum of size and complexity. The following are seven of the
more common forms of consumer fraud:
1. Mislabeled products and misleading advertising.
Many consumer products come with labels that purport to tell about the ingredients in a product
or about its performance or efficiency—for example, prepared foods, computers, water heaters,
furnaces, and a host of other products. One way to sell cheap or shoddy products is to put
inaccurate or misleading information on the label to make them seem better or more attractive
than they really are. Misleading advertising is another way to influence buying decisions. For
example, food manufacturers may make questionable claims about the nutritional or heath value
of their products.
2. Real estate fraud. Real estate fraud involves lying or being deceptive about the condition of
real property, things such as land, houses, and buildings.
3. Free prize scams. In these types of scams, people are told that they have won a valuable free
prize, but in order to collect it they must send in money or make a phone call. The money that is
sent in will greatly exceed the value of the prize, or the victim will be charged for the phone call
at a rate that greatly exceeds the value of the prize.
4. Bait-and-switch advertising. Popular with “legitimate” retail businesses, this fraud involves
advertising some well-known product, such as a TV or major appliance, at a ridiculously low
price. However, when consumers come to the store, they are told that the item is sold out or
temporarily out of stock and then are steered toward other more expensive products that are
available.
5. Repair frauds. Repair frauds typically involve big ticket items such as homes, automobiles, or
major appliances (Micro wave, washing machines, Air conditioners, and the like). The fraud
involves either doing unnecessary repairs or doing substandard work and then charging the
victim full price.
6. Charity and advocacy frauds. Charity frauds appeal to the emotions. The victims think they are
donating money or goods to help a worthy cause, when in reality the money is kept by those who
collected it.
7. Advance-fee swindles. Anytime someone is asked to pay in advance for a service or product,
he or she is vulnerable to an advance-fee swindle. Typically, in these swindles someone promises
to do something for the victim, but the offender asks the victim to pay first and then the offender
never delivers on the promise. Often, the promised service is one where it may be difficult to
confirm one way or the other whether the service was provided. For example, advance-fee
swindles may involve such services as finding housing, or educational loans, or employment. In
these cases, the swindler promises to help the victim find an apartment, or a college loan, or a
new job in return for a fee. The victim pays the fee, but does not get what he or she wanted in
return. The swindler claims to be working for the victims but really is just taking their money.
Health Care Fraud
Health care fraud involves fraud against health care insurers and government programs such as
Medicare and Medicaid. By giving false medical claims health care fraud are committed. Health
care fraud can be committed by any person or organization in the health care industry who is
involved with the provision of health care services to patients, including Doctors, mental health
professionals, hospitals, nursing homes, equipment suppliers, and pharmaceutical companies, as
well as many others. Because Doctors deal most directly with patients, their involvement in fraud
is particularly serious. The following are three common forms of health care fraud involving
physicians:
1. Unnecessary procedures. Because most people know very little about their bodies and the
various problems they can have, they rely on the expertise of Doctors. Doctors are supposed to
provide treatment based on their best assessment of the patient’s medical needs.
Some Doctors, however, make decisions based not on the medical needs of patients but rather on
their financial goals. Doctors may recommend that patients undergo unnecessary procedures,
ranging from relatively simple but unnecessary tests to life-threatening surgery. The patients
have to run through a battery of unnecessary tests, and then they are billed for the cost of the
tests. There is a financial cut for Doctors in each test.
2. Fee splitting. Most general practitioners cannot handle serious illnesses or medical conditions.
When confronted with these types of cases, they often refer patients to specialists. To the extent
that referrals are made on the basis of the physician’s medical judgment, that is appropriate. But
sometimes, physicians make referrals because they have a financial arrangement with a
particular specialist. In return for referring patients to the specialist, the general practitioner gets
a kickback in the form of a cut of the specialist’s fee.
3. Fraudulent billing. Probably the most common type of fraud is fraudulent billing. This can be
accomplished in a variety of different ways, but basically it involves submitting claims for
reimbursement for services that were never really provided. For example, Doctors may submit a
claim saying that he or she performed some medical service for a patient when the service really
was not provided, or when the service that was provided was somehow less than the Doctor is
claiming.
Environmental Crime
It is defined as any violations of local, state, or federal “environmental laws.” Environmental

laws seek to protect the quality of the air, water, and soil by regulating both harmful additions to
the environment (water, air, and soil pollution) and harmful subtractions from the environment
(destruction of habitats).
Environmental crime comes in a variety of forms and sizes. Offenders may be homeowners who
dump leftover paint into a city sewer system in violation of local ordinances, or they may be
multinational corporations that manufacture, ship, and dispose of hazardous materials under
conditions that are criminally negligent and morally outrageous.
Because different types of environmental crimes are associated with different industries and
businesses, the nature of environmental crime in a community tends to reflect local economic
activity. One of the most important types of environmental crime is the illegal disposal of
hazardous waste materials. In recent years, research suggests that environmental criminals have
become more sophisticated. Rather than simply dumping hazardous waste in some isolated area
late at night, today’s more sophisticated environmental criminal may forge a waste transportation
manifest or bribe public officials to look the other way. Other techniques involve mixing
hazardous waste with nonhazardous waste, known as “cocktailing”; mislabeling drums, or
disposing of the waste on the generator’s own property.
Mention different types of white collar crimes.
11.7 Consequences of White-Collar Crime

Crime, by its very nature, has consequences for individuals and communities. White-collar
crime, in particular, has a set of consequences that may be significantly different from the kinds
of consequences that arise from street crimes.
In particular, the consequences can be characterized as
(1) individual economic losses,
(2) societal economic losses,
(3) emotional consequences,
(4) physical harm, and
(5) “positive” consequences
Individual economic losses refer to the losses that individual victims or business lose due to
white-collar crimes. One study found that 27 white-collar offenders were responsible for dollar
losses in the amount of $2,494,309 (Crofts, 2003). Each offender stole an average of $95,935.
Other studies have also found large dollar losses as a central feature of white-collar crimes
(Wheeler, et.al 1988). In fact, Sutherland argued that white-collar crimes cost several times more
than street crimes in terms of financial losses.
Societal economic losses entail the total amount of losses incurred by society from white-collar
crime. Kane and Wall (2006) cite estimates suggesting that white-collar crime costs the United
States between $300 and $600 billion a year in financial losses. These costs are increased when
considering the secondary societal economic costs such as business failures and recovery costs.
In terms of business failures, one estimate suggests that one third to one half of business failures
are attributed to employee theft (National White Collar Crime Center, 2009).
Emotional consequences are also experienced by victims of white-collar crime and all members
of society exposed to this misconduct. These emotional consequences include stress from
victimization, violation of trust, and damage to public morale. With regard to stress, any
experience of victimization is stressful, but the experience of white-collar crime victimization is
believed to be particularly stressful. Much of the stress stems from the violation of trust that
comes along with white-collar crimes.
According to Sutherland (1941), the violation of trust can be defined as the “most general”
characteristic of white-collar crime. Victims of a white-collar crime, in addition to the other
losses incurred from the victimization, have their trust violated by the offender. There is reason
to believe that the level of trust may be tied to the specific level of trust given to different types
of white-collar offenders (e.g., we trust doctors and pharmacists at a certain level, but auto
mechanics on another level). With regard to public alienation, violations of trust potentially do
damage to the economy and social relationships. According to Frankel (2006), “with few
exceptions, trust is essential to economic prosperity”. If individuals do not trust financial
institutions, they are not likely to invest their funds in the economy. Sutherland recognized this
relationship between trust, the economy, and social relationships. He wrote:
The financial loss from white-collar crime, great as it is, is less important than the damage to
social relations. White-collar crime violates trust and therefore creates distrust; this lowers social
morale and produces disorganization. Many white-collar crimes attack the fundamental
principles of the American institutions. Ordinary crimes, on the other hand, produce little effect
on social institutions or social organization.
Building on Sutherland’s ideas, Moore and Mills (1990) described the following consequences
of white-collar crime:
• Diminished faith in a free economy and in business leaders
• Erosion of public morality
• Loss of confidence in political institutions, processes, and leaders
Physical harm may also result from white-collar crime victimization. Sometimes, physical harm
may be a direct result of the white-collar offense. For example, cases of physical or sexual
patient abuse will result in physical harm for victims. Other times, experiencing financial harm
can lead to physical problems. The loss of one’s entire retirement savings, for example, has been
found to contribute to health problems for white-collar crime victims (Payne, 2005).
Death or serious physical injury is also a possible consequence of white-collar crimes. In one
case, for instance, seven people died after a doctor “used lemon juice instead of antiseptic on
patients’ operation wounds” (Ninemsn Staff, 2010). In another case, Reinaldo Silvestre was
running a medical clinic in Miami Beach when it was discovered that he was practicing without a
license, using animal tranquilizers as sedatives for humans, and performing botched surgeries.
Positive consequences: Sociologist Emile Durkheim has highlighted four functions of crime that
illustrate how crime in some ways has positive influences on individuals and communities. These
four functions can also be applied to white-collar crime.
1.The warning light syndrome refers to the fact that outbreaks of white-collar crime could
potentially send a message to individuals, businesses, or communities that something is wrong in
a particular workplace system. If an outbreak of employee theft occurs in a hospital, for example,
the administrators would be warned that they need to address those aspects of the occupational
routines that allowed the misconduct to occur.
2.In terms of boundary maintenance, it is plausible to suggest that individuals learn the rules of
the workplace when some individuals are caught breaking those rules. In effect, they learn the
boundaries of appropriate and acceptable behaviors by seeing some individuals step over those
boundaries. Some even recommend that white-collar offenders, when caught, be arrested at times
when the vast majority of workers would be able to see the arrests. This recommendation is
promoting a strategy to promote boundary maintenance.
3. With regard to social change, our society has changed significantly because of white-collar
misdeeds. Some people have talked about how survivors of violent crime actually become
stronger because of their experience with violence. Following this same line of thinking, those
who survive white-collar crime victimization might actually become stronger. As well, when
cultures and societies survive corporate victimization, they too may actually grow stronger.
4. Community integration is a fourth function of white-collar crime. In particular, groups of

individuals who otherwise would not have become acquainted with one another may come
together in their response to white-collar crime. When there is a crime outbreak in a
neighborhood, those neighbors come together to share their experiences and make their
neighborhood stronger. A crime outbreak in a business could have the same result. Coworkers
who never talked with one another might suddenly become lunch buddies simply because they
want to get together to talk about the crimes that occurred in their workplace. As well, at the
societal level, new groups have been formed to prevent and respond to white-collar crime.
11.8 THE CONTROL OF WHITE-COLLAR CRIME
We have very little success controlling any kind of crime in our society, as attested by increasing
crime rates. Our methods of control have been repressive on the one hand and rehabilitative on
the other, with some lip-service to prevention. The punishment of individual lawbreakers is an
integral part of our religious and political heredity, just as individual readjustment is a tradition
of our public welfare, charitable, and correction programs.
The traditional forms -chiefly imprisonment and public stigma in the first instance and case-
work, psychotherapy, vocational training and the like in the latter-are, for the most part,
inappropriate in white-collar crime.
Clinard reports that imprisonment, even for sentences as short as six months, was the punishment
most feared by businessmen, according to their own testimony. The other criminal court
sanctions of fines and suspended sentences had little effect in insuring compliance with
government regulations. He concludes, however, that punishment, either administrative or
criminal, does little to control white-collar offenders, except to increase caution and-cleverness
in the methods of their evasions. He feels that the only effective control rests on "the voluntary
compliance with the regulations of society by the vast majority of the citizens."
Newman reported on public opinion of punishment as a means of control. He hypothesizes that

the public-i.e., victims-will punish white-collar violators much more severely than administrative
agencies actually do, particularly in cases of food law violations which potentially threaten their
own health as well as their pocketbooks. This was, in fact, demonstrated. While about one-fifth
of the respondents indicated that they would sentence some violators to prison for more than one
year, the majority selected fines, warnings, seizures, and jail terms as their judgments. The
conclusion was: "In effect, respondents viewed food adulteration as more comparable to serious
traffic violations than to burglary.
Fuller, however, stresses the necessity of convincing the public that white-collar crimes are more
serious than conventional offenses and calls for strict enforcement of the laws.
There has been a general trend away from punishment-at least severe, stigmatizing punishment-
as an effective method of dealing with all sorts of social deviation. Instead, a variety of
educational and social-readjustment programs have been suggested. Lane proposes an
educational and experimental program involving the interaction of government and business
management personnel.
If white-collar crime is intrinsic to and normative within the value structure of our society, then
no punishment or treatment program will effectively eradicate it. It cannot be "cured" by
externally-imposed sanctions; major value realignment becomes necessary.
The concept of white collar crime has forced the theoretician into an analysis of highly complex
and very abstract relationships within our social system. No longer is the criminologist a middle-
class observer studying lower-class behavior. He now looks upward at the most powerful and
prestigious strata, and thus new solutions are needed.
11.9 Summary
White-collar crime is a generic term that refers to a broad range of illegal acts committed by
seemingly respectable people in business settings as part of their occupational roles. There are
many different types of white-collar crime, ranging from antitrust offenses to environmental
violations to health care frauds and beyond. These types of crime are important because they
impose enormous financial, physical, and social harms on individuals, communities, and society
in general.
Braithwaite, J. (1985). White collar crime. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 1–25.
Geis, G. and Meier, R.F. (1977). White-Collar Crime (Revised Edition). New York: Free Press
Sutherland, E.H. (1949). White Collar Crime. New York

Write a note on White Collar crime.
Discuss causes and implications of white collar crime.
Lesson 12
Corporate Crime
Structure
12.0Objectives
12.1Introduction
12.2 Definition
12.3 Lack of research on corporate crime
12.4 Types of corporate crime
12.5Causes
12.6 Consequences
12.7 Why the Leniency in Punishment?
12.8Societal Reaction to corporate crime
12.9 Controlling Corporate Crime
12.10 Summary
12.11References
12.0 Objectives
Define corporate crimes
Differentiate white collar crimes from corporate crimes
Understand different types of corporate crimes

12.1 Introduction
Corporate (business) crime is a type of organizational crime committed in free enterprise

economies and thus involves criminal activity on behalf of and for the benefit of a private
business or corporation. The term corporate crime is usually associated only with business
organizations, but other organizations such as political parties, can also commit corporate
offenses that involve an abuse of power. For that reason, the term organizational crime is
accurate to describe abuses of power by political or other groups.
Corporate crime falls within the domain of the white collar crime broadly defined as crime
committed within the course of one's occupation by persons of relatively high social status. But
in contrast to those white collar offences, such as embezzlement or misuse of computers for fun
or profit, which are committed by individuals against companies, corporate crime involves
offences committed by companies or their agents against members of the public, the
environment, creditors, investors or corporate competitors.
12.2 Definitions
According to sociologist David Friedrichs (1996), corporate crimes are “illegal and harmful acts
committed by officers and employees of corporations to promote corporate and personal
interests.” Similarly, sociologist David Simon (2001) refers to corporate crime as “acts of
economic domination.”10 According to most definitions, corporate crimes victimize the general
public, consumers, a corporation’s employees, or a corporation’s competitors. Offenses often
include acts like corporate stealing, corruption, or fraud and have broad domestic or, in some
cases, international implications.
The Australian criminologist John Braithwaite (1984) defined corporate crime as "the conduct of
a corporation or employees acting on behalf of a corporation, which is proscribed and punishable
by law."
Clinard and Peter Yeager (1980) defined corporate crime as “... any act committed by
corporations that is punishable by the state, regardless of whether it is punished under
administrative, civil, or criminal law.” In addition, Clinard included behaviors that may not be
explicitly defined as violations of law, but that may be unethical and/or immoral in the corporate
or occupational context. For example, a scientist who cheats on her research by altering the
findings of a study may not have violated a law or regulation, but instead has violated an ethical
rule or norm of the scientific community.According to Hagan, Corporate crime is a type of
organizational crime committed in free enterprise economies and thus involves criminal activity
on behalf of and for the benefit of private business corporation. Corporate crime takes many
forms, including price-fixing, kickbacks, commercial bribery, tax violations, fraud against
government, and crimes against consumers.
In criminology, Corporate Crime refers to crimes committed either by a corporation having a
separate legal entity or by individuals acting on behalf of a corporation or other business entity.
Corporate crimes are offences committed by corporate officials for their corporation and the
offences of the corporation themselves for corporate gain. The corporation or business entity is
said to commit a corporate crime if it is organized for that purpose. The mission of a corporation
of this type is to use illegal means to gain profits and remain in business. The crime is often
carried out by all levels of the corporation, such as the board of directors, the officers, and
corporate managers. Some of the criminal offenses that are common to corporate criminals
include falsification of corporate financial statements, corporate abuse of anti-trust laws, and
bribing government officials for their corporation’s gain. When corporations are organized for
money laundering purposes, they can be charged with corporate crimes.
Q1: Define corporate crimes.
Ans:__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
12.3 Lack of research on corporate crime
Among others, Clinard and Yeager (1978) and Geis and Meier (1977) suggest that there are a
number of reasons for the lack of research on corporate crime in the past:
1. Many social scientists are inexperienced in studying corporate crime, which often requires
some sophistication in areas of law, finance, and economics.
2. Corporate violations often involve administrative and civil sanctions to which criminologists
have limited exposure.
3. Enforcement is often carried out by state and federal regulatory agencies rather than by the
usual criminal justice agencies.
4. Funds for such studies have not been generally available in the past.
5. Corporate crime is complicated by the very complexity of corporations.
6. Research data are not readily available because of the imperviousness of the corporate board
room.
7. Corporate crime raises special problems of analysis and research objectivity.

Despite these obstacles, rising public concern about corporate wrongdoing has encouraged
increased research into corporate crime. Clinard and Yeager represented a landmark the first
large-scale, comprehensive investigation of corporate crime in Illegal Corporate Behavior (1979)
and later Corporate Crime (1980).They conducted a systematic analysis of administrative, civil,
and criminal actions either filed or completed by 25 federal agencies against 477 of the largest
manufacturing corporations in the United States during 1975–1976.
In addition, they performed a less comprehensive survey of 105 of the largest wholesale, retail,
and service corporations . Among their findings were the following:
• Sixty percent of the large corporations had at least one action initiated against them during the
period.
• The most deviant firms (multiple violators) accounted for 13 percent of those charged (8
percent of all corporations studied) and for 52 percent of all offenses.
The average for these corporations was 23.5 violations per firm, while the average for all
corporations was 4.2.
• Large corporations were the chief violators, with oil, pharmaceutical, and automobile industries
the biggest offenders and the most often cited. These three groups alone accounted for almost
half of all the violations.
• The general leniency with which corporate violators are treated, noted over 40 years previously
by Sutherland, appeared to persist.
12.4 Types of corporate crime:
These can be grouped into three broad categories.
12.4.1 Crimes against Individuals (the Public)
Crimes by organizations against individuals (the public) are multinational bribery, corporate
fraud, price fixing, manufacturing and sale of faulty or unsafe products, inequitable taxes, and
environmental crimes, to mention just a few.
Everyone is at risk when breathing air or drinking water that has been polluted in the course of
manufacturing. When company continues to pollute in violation of environmental protection
agency standards and rules, it violates its position of trust and power for its own gain. For some
companies, a decision not to pollute is an expensive one; antipollution equipment may be
expensive, and if that equipment is not available, the company may have to retool or go out of
business to avoid violating pollution laws.
In the early hours of Monday, Dec. 3, 1984, a toxic cloud of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas
enveloped the hundreds of shanties and huts surrounding a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India.
Later, as the deadly cloud slowly drifted in the cool night air through streets in surrounding
sections, sleeping residents awoke, coughing, choking, and rubbing painfully stinging eyes. By
the time the gas cleared at dawn, many were dead or injured. According to one estimate there
were more than 3,800 deaths and approximately 11,000 suffered with disabilities. Union
Carbide was one of the largest industrial companies in the United States and the world at that
time. The pesticides were made at Bhopal Plant for the Indian market. In 1985, the government
of India filed a civil suit against Union Carbide in Federal District Court in New York City and
later filed suit in India for an unspecified amount. Even years after the tragedy, it is difficult to
measure the human cost of the disaster.
SAHARA VS. SEBI - The Supreme Court on 31st August, 2012 in one of its most anticipated
judgment of recent times has directed the Sahara Group and its two group companies Sahara
India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation
Limited (SHICL) to refund around Rs 17,400 crore to their investors within 3 months from the
date of the order with an interest of 15%. Since they have failed to do so, Subrata Roy is in
police custody. Whether Sahara gets any relief in the near future remains to be seen. It however,
seems to be a tough legal battle ahead of them.
Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest health care company, has been able to slide by on its
benign reputation as the purveyor of bandaids, talcum powder and baby shampoo. But several
scandals in the last few years have tattered that image. The biggest one involves over 24,000
women around the world who have sued the company after suffering serious complications
following a vaginal mesh implant procedure. In 2013 juries in several U.S. states found J&J
guilty of concealing the adverse physical and emotional effects of the antipsychotic medication
Risperdal, promoting it to doctors and patients as better than cheaper generics, and paying
kickbacks to physicians and pharmacists to encourage off-label use. Around the same time nearly
10,000 patients who had J&J’s metal-on-metal hips implanted joined class action lawsuits,
claiming that they suffered cobalt poisoning, tissue death, and other serious side effects. In 2014
a J&J subsidiary’s power morcellator device caused rapid spread of uterine cancer and was
recalled.
More recently, in July a St. Louis jury awarded nearly U.S.$4.7 billion in damages to 22 women
and their families who claimed asbestos in Johnson & Johnson talcum powder caused their
ovarian cancer. Finally, Johnson & Johnson has become embroiled in the opioid crisis, with
more than 430 lawsuits accusing it or its subsidiaries of misleading patients about the addictive
dangers posed by its painkilling drugs.
12.4.2 Crimes against Employees

Organizational (corporate) crime against employees may take many forms; the most insidious
relates to purposive violation of health and safety laws that may not only threaten workers’ lives,
but may also genetically damage their offspring. A corporate crime against employees would
involve a deliberate violation of occupational health and safety rules motivated by financial
benefits. Failures to provide employees with appropriate safety equipment or exposing them to
harmful working conditions are examples of this kind of corporate crime. It is now known that
exposure to asbestos, fibers eventually leads to serious lung diseases and death. Most corporate
crimes victimizing workers involve injuries, exploitation, or simply job dismissal. Many labor
laws were designed to reduce unfair treatment of employees.
During World War II, the large German manufacturing corporation I. G. Farben worked captive
workers (slave labor) to death in its factories. While most modern manufacturers do not directly
kill their workers, health and safety violations by corporations and organizations against their
employees can take many forms. Some occupational exposure to injury and disease may be a
necessary part of employment, but unnecessary, preventable hazards and their disregard by
employers in the United States are regulated by OSHA and can incur criminal penalties.
The ready-made garments (RMG) industry has been Bangladesh’s key export industry and a
main source of foreign exchange. More than 78% of Bangladesh’s export earnings come from
the garment industry. Labour standards and rights are commonly ignored in the RMG factories in
Bangladesh: poor practices include the absence of trade unions, informal recruitment, and
irregular payment, sudden termination, wage discrimination, excessive work, and abusing child
labour. Moreover workers suffer various kinds of diseases due to the unhygienic environment
and a number of workers are killed in workplace accidents, fires and panic stampedes.
Recruitment policies are highly informal and there are no written formal contracts and
appointment letters. They are therefore vulnerable to losing their jobs at any time. Continuous
work schedule, wage penalties, physical and verbal abuse are common. Women workers face
physical abuse and sexual harassment inside as well as outside the factories.
Walmart Wage theft involves boosting corporate profits by forcing employees to work off the
clock, cheating them out of required overtime pay and engaging in similar practices. In a 2018
report Good Jobs First and Jobs with Justice reported that Walmart far and away tops the list of
corporations in total amount of settlements, verdicts and fines for wage theft: $1,408,901,183.
Walmart has also been sued for continuing to engage in the same illegal labor practices. Walmart
is notoriously anti-union; many of its workers receive food stamps and other public assistance to
survive on their low wages. Violence and harassment against women workers in Walmart’s
garment supply chain in Asia has been detailed in another 2018 report, by Global Labor Justice.
Women reported “acts that inflicted sexual harm and suffering; physical violence, verbal abuse,
coercion, threats and retaliation, and routine deprivations of liberty including forced overtime.”
Walmart has contributed to risks of this violence through excessive working hours, unsafe
workplaces, unauthorized subcontracting and other factors.
12.4.3 Crimes against Organizations
Criminal activity by organizations against other organizations may take many forms, including
crimes by private corporations against the state (e.g., wartime trade violations, cheating on
government contracts, or income tax violations) and crimes by corporations against corporations
(e.g., industrial espionage and illegal competitive practices). Tax evasion is the general term for
efforts by individuals, corporations, trusts and other entities to evade taxes by illegal means. A
company may choose to avoid taxes by establishing their company or subsidiaries in an offshore
jurisdiction .According to one estimate; developing countries lose US-$ 285 billion per year due
to tax evasion in the domestic shadow economy.
Q: What are three types of corporate crime?
Ans;__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
12.5 Causes
In order to understand about corporate crimes, it is important to first identify the motivations and
organizational settings that underlie corporate crime. First, corporate crime typically occurs in
large, complex business organizations. Corporations operate based on a complex hierarchy of
positions, ranging from a board of directors, executives, corporate divisions, and individual
employees. This structure facilitates corporate crime by making it difficult to detect and hold
someone liable. Second, corporate executives are thrust into a world where attaining higher
profits is the chief concern of the profession. As leaders of their companies, executives have a
responsibility to act in the interest of their shareholders and seek to maximize profits at all costs.
Theories of Anomie and Strain explained by sociologists like Emile Durkheim, help explain the
motives of corporate criminals. According to Durkheim, individuals perceive an unlimited
amount of success that they can achieve, emphasizing monetary success and individual prestige
and crime is motivated by the desire for more wealth and power.
Scholars of criminal behavior generally agree that corporate criminals are rational actors. Based
on the rational-actor model, corporate criminals do not commit crimes based on need or
vengeance but rather to gain power and profit either for themselves or for their corporation.
Since corporate criminals are not necessarily looking to accumulate wealth because they need it
to survive, they are able to make rational decisions in determining whether or not to commit a
crime based on a cost-benefit analysis.
Q: Mention two causes of corporate crimes.
Ans:__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
12.6 Consequences
Studies have also suggested that white-collar and corporate crimes undermine the social fabric of
society through the abuse of power and violations of trust, with consequences that may be more
serious than those of conventional street crimes.
Corporate crimes involve offenses that are committed on behalf of an organization to increase
profits and minimize costs. These offenses come in forms such as price-fixing, falsifying records,
or simply cutting corners. These offenses include embezzlement and fraud, and have a tendency
to hurt, rather than benefit, the organization for which the individual works. Then, of course
there are instances when both the individual as well as the corporation can benefit from the
crime. For example, an individual may receive incentives (e.g., bonuses, or staying employed)
for taking actions (in this case illegal actions) to make the company appear more profitable. In
these instances, individual’s actions and choices are shaped to some extent by the immediate
social setting, which in turn is influenced from the larger institutional environment and culture.
The costs of corporate crime greatly exceed the cost of all other street crimes, and it has been
estimated that corporate offenses kill and maim more people each year than violent street crimes
(Messner and Rosenfeld, 2001).
Many types of corporate crime may not have violent consequences, but the price paid by its
victims is catastrophic nevertheless. Corporate crimes generally impact a greater number of
people. Fraud and anti-trust violations can impact on an entire organization, the economy, or
possibly society as a whole. In 1991, corporate crime cost the American consumer $260.06
billion, six thousand times less than the amount taken in all bank robberies that same year and
forty times more than the amount taken in all street crime. Employees and consumers are forced
to foot the costs of these activities through job loss and inflation.
12.7 Why the Leniency in Punishment?
If Corporate crimes are economically the most costly crimes to society, why are such acts seldom
punished? A number of reasons have been suggested:
 Many acts were not made illegal until the twentieth century.
 The business philosophy of many nations has been dominated by beliefs in laissez-faire
economics.
 Public concern with corporate crime is a recent phenomenon. Once this resentment
becomes organized, public pressure against white collar crime and pressure for legislation
and enforcement can be expected. At least one national survey suggests the general
public regards white collar crimes as even more serious than conventional crimes such as
burglary, robbery, and the like (Wolfgang, 1980, p. E21). Thus, it seems lenient treatment
of elite offenders is not supported by the public.
 In the past, white collar crimes were given less publicity; sometimes the media were
owned by businesses that they were violators (Snider, 1978). Fear of loss of major
advertising revenue may also have an impact.
 Corporate criminals and those who make and enforce the laws share the same
socioeconomic class and values. They fail to match the public stereotype of the criminal.
Vilhelm (1952) suggests that citizens don’t oppose such crime because they themselves
often violate many of these same laws on a modest scale.
 Political pressure groups often block effective regulation or enforcement. Some of the
biggest campaign contributors are also the biggest violators. Funding for such groups
may come from previous tax avoidance, laundering, and other shady practices. Since
such criminals are seldom prosecuted, many are first offenders and thus are treated with
leniency.
 It is easier for politicians and public officials to concentrate on the crimes of the young
and • lower class, groups that lack political clout.
 The long-term nature of corporate violations and court delays make sanctions difficult.
Black (2004) suggests a main problem with regulatory agencies is that they are in desperate need
of criminological expertise. No federal, state, or local government agency has a “chief
criminologist” position, and criminologists are excluded from policy debates on these issues.
12.8 Societal Reaction to corporate crime: in the form of Social Sanctions: Goodwill, for
anybody corporate is its heart and soul. Once, that is lost, the entire strength comes to a
standstill. The term 'reputation' carries with it more than one meaning. For individuals, reputation
loss connotes both the individual's sense of shame and others' increased reluctance to do business
in the future with the individual or corporations, however, reputation loss refers only to the
reluctance of others, such as customers and workers, to deal with the corporation in the future.
Of course, the managers of the corporation may feel shame about their corporation's conviction.
As applied to corporations, reputation refers, for example, to the supra competitive price that a
firm with a good reputation can charge customers for its products or the lower wages that a
'good' employer can pay while still attracting workers. Once this is harmed, it would create a
deep stigmatizing effect on the corporation since its business would come to a standstill with no
customers. This can be done by asking the corporate to publish this crime widely compulsorily
and fund the publication as well. This will act as a strong deterrence for not to commit crimes
and the shareholders also would come in an active role in stopping the active organizational
structure from authorizing committal of such crimes
12.9 Controlling Corporate Crime
There are two theories that attempt to explain how to prevent corporate crime: deterrence theory
and compliance theory.
Theories of deterrence focus on preventing individuals from committing crimes based on a fear
of the consequences. Compliance theories, on the other hand, concentrate on the power of
regulatory agencies to encourage individuals to comply with the law before crimes are
committed. The biggest difference in these theories is the way that laws are enforced on
corporate criminals. Deterrence theories rely on criminal prosecutions to prevent corporate crime
after the crime has already been committed, where as compliance theories focus regulatory
agencies that encourage compliance with the law before the crime takes place.
12.9.1 Deterrence Theory
Deterrence theory argues that individuals act in accordance with their self-interest and obey the
law because they fear the penalties of criminal behavior. More often than not, they choose not
commit crimes because they have seen harsh punishments imposed on others. Current research
on deterrence emphasizes the role of the criminal justice system enforcing and punishing
offenders. The fear of detection, conviction, and punishment resulting from prosecution forms
the core of deterrence theory. Therefore, individuals decide whether or not to commit crimes
based by weighing the possibility of punishment from criminal prosecution against their ability
to profit from illegal activity. Although deterrence is one of the central objectives of the criminal
justice system, there is little consensus as to whether or not prosecutions effectively deter
corporate crime.
Sociologist John Braithwaite (1999) argues that strong criminal prosecution is an effective way
to deter corporate crime. Braithwaite suggests that corporate executives can be deterred from
crime more easily than other criminals because they fear falling within the profession. In other
words, if corporate offenders are caught and prosecuted, they risk of losing their jobs and social
status within the profession, often the very things they sought to increase through their behavior.
Even worse, corporate criminals may risk going to prison. A few scholars believe that criminal
prosecution is an effective method of deterring crime, but only if corporate criminals are given
more severe penalties like longer prison sentences in harsh prison conditions. By increasing
penalties, corporate executives would be deterred from crime due to an increased fear of the
consequences of their actions.
12.9.2 Compliance Theory
The second theory of crime prevention, compliance theory, states that regulatory bodies should
encourage compliance with the law rather than rely on criminal prosecution to prevent crime.
The theory suggests that by making prosecution a last resort, corporate executives would gain
greater respect for the law and trust in the system, thereby making it less likely that they would
commit crimes. Enforcement by regulatory agencies is typically employed through the use of
sanctions.
Sociologist David Freidrichs (1996) contends that although the regulatory agencies have a much
lower profile than federal prosecutors, they their power to enforce is the law is more or equally
effective because they are less likely to invoke adversarial confrontations with corporations.
Such proponents believe that regulation is a completely necessary in a complex and competitive
society. They argue that independent forces should exist in order to protect the public from
harmful business activities of which they may not have knowledge. Corporations often fail to
recognize that they actually benefit from increased regulation because without it they would face
more civil suits from workers or consumers, and possibly avoid the possibility of criminal
prosecution.
Given the strengths and weaknesses of current theories relating to deterrence and compliance, I
argue that a combination of both theories is the best way to explain how to prevent corporate
white collar crime.
12.10 Summary
After going through the whole discussion of corporate crimes, one can easily say that there are a
few obvious hurdles in studying the corporate crime. These are shortage of research funds, an
absence of official statistics, problems of access and the lack of an adequate theoretical
framework of corporate crimes. Seriousness of this crime can be seen by the kind of damage it
has on economic, physical and social life of the members of society. We need to have stringent
laws and the sensitivity of the public towards this crime, only then we would be able to come out
of it. Corporate crime has existed for decades and will likely continue for years to come.
Nevertheless, by seeking new approaches to prevention we might be able to limit the extent to
which corporate crime impacts society.
12.11 References:
Clinard, M. (1983). Corporate Ethics and Crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Dohrety , Michael (2001), Criminology, Old Bailey Press: Britain.
Hartley, Richard D.(2008) Corporate Crime: A Reference Handbook: Contemporary world

issues. ABC-CLIO.
Geis, Gilbert L.(2007) White-Collar and Corporate Crime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall..
12.13 Model question
What are the Corporate Crimes? Why they occur? What are its implications?.
Lesson 13
Theories of Punishment
Structure
13.0Objective
13.1Introduction
13.2Functions of Punishment
13.3Deterrent theory
13.4Retributive theory
13.5Reformatory theory
13.6 Preventive Theory

13.7Summary
13.9 Model question

13.0 Objectives
 know the different types of punishment
 differentiate between the different types of punishment

13.1 Introduction:
All societies and social groups develop ways to control behavior that violates norms.
Socialization is a basic type of social control that seeks conformity through learning
processes and the subsequent internalization of group norms as personal preferences. Social
control is also achieved directly through external sources that compel individuals to conform
through the threat of societal reaction. Regardless of whether conformity results from
personal desires or external compulsion, conformity is ultimately achieved through the use
and threat of sanctions.
As an instrument of social control, sanctions vary in their nature and source. Positive sanctions
are rewards meant to encourage conformity to norms, whereas negative sanctions are
punishments to discourage norm violations. Based on their source, sanctions are considered
“formal” when they are imposed by the state or by other organizations that have the legitimate
authority to do so (e.g., churches, educational institutions, business organizations). In contrast,
informal sanctions are unofficial actions by groups and individuals. These include sanctions
imposed by family, friends, and quasi-legal bodies such as vigilante groups, paramilitary forces,
and local “regulators.”
Sanctions also vary according to their magnitude and form .As punishments designed to inflict
pain, negative sanctions can vary in intensity from minor inconveniences (e.g., small fines) to
death (i.e., capital punishment).The form of these sanctions may also differ, involving economic
costs, physical restraints, and/or corporal punishment. For example, parents may choose to
discipline their children through the denial of their allowance (an economic sanction),
“grounding” them to their home (an incapacitative sanction), or by spanking them (corporal
punishment). Governments may assign criminal penalties that also include monetary fines,
imprisonment, and death sentences.
Benn and Flew have given some elements of punishment, which say that-
1) punishment must involve pain and its consequences must normally be considered
unpleasant
2) it must be for any logical wrong
3) it must be given to the actual offender who has committed the offence
4) the pain must be inflicted by the authority which has been constituted by the legal
system.
The attitude towards crime and criminals at a given time in a society represents the basic values
of that society. The attitude towards criminals has always been coloured by extreme type of
emotions displayed by society. As a result of changing attitudes, three types of reactions can be
discerned in various societies.
The first is the traditional approach, of a universal nature, which can be termed as the punitive
approach. It regards the criminal as a basically bad and dangerous sort of person and the object
under this approach is to inflict punishment on the offender in order to protect society from his
onslaughts.
The second type of approach, of relatively recent origin, considers the criminal as a victim of
circumstances and a product of various factors within the criminal and society. This approach
regards the criminal as a sick person, requiring treatment, which can be termed as therapeutic
approach.
Finally, there is preventive approach which instead of focusing attention in particular offenders,
seeks to eliminate those conditions which are responsible for crime causation.
13.2 The Functions of Punishment
The functions of criminal and civil punishments in any society depend largely on the prevailing
social, economic, and political conditions in that society. In small, undifferentiated societies
characterized by value consensus, sanctions are used to preserve social order by maintaining the
status quo and regulating and controlling social relations. In contrast, criminal and civil sanctions
in more diversified societies are often viewed as both sources of order maintenance and
instruments for the protection of special interests.
Across different times and places, criminal sanctions have been designed to serve multiple
purposes. These purposes include the reinforcement of collective values, the protection of the
community through the physical incapacitation of convicted offenders, the rehabilitation of the
offender, the deterrence of individuals and criminal and civil sanctions (e.g., monetary fines,
victim compensation) are designed for restorative purposes.
Q1: Name the three approaches in the form of different reactions by society regarding
punishment?
Q2: What do you mean by therapeutic way of punishing the criminal?
Keeping the above categorizations in mind, let us discuss the theories of punishment.
13.3 Deterrent Theory
The purpose of the punishment is to deter the criminal from committing crime in future and to
get an example for others also that who will commit crime will be punished likewise. The idea is
that punishment will thus curb the criminal activities of the prospective offenders. In olden times
severe punishments and public executions were held mainly with the object to deter others and to
set an example that violation of law will be punished. Punishment serves as deterrence in two
ways; it creates fear in the mind of the wrong doer and deters him from committing crime in
future and it also deters other prospective criminals from committing crime.
Earlier modes of punishment were, by and large, deterrent in nature. This kind of punishment
presupposes infliction of severe penalties on offenders with a view to deterring them from
committing crime. Deterrence is based on a rational conception of human behavior in which
individuals freely choose between alternative courses of action to maximize pleasure and
minimize pain. The deterrent theory seeks to create some kind of fear in the mind of others by
providing adequate penalty and exemplary punishment to offenders which keeps them away
from criminality. Thus, the rigour of penal discipline acts as a sufficient warning to offenders
and also others. Therefore, deterrence is undoubtedly one of the effective policies which almost
every penal system accepts despite the fact that it invariably fails in its practical application.
Early Classical Philosophers of Deterrence Theory
The deterrence theory of punishment can be traced to the early works of classical philosophers
such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1678), Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794), and Jeremy Bentham
(1748–1832).Together, these theorists provided the foundation for modern deterrence theory in
criminology.
Thomas Hobbes
In Leviathan, published in 1651, Hobbes described men as neither good nor bad. Hobbes
assumed that men are creatures of their own volition who want certain things and who fight
when their desires are in conflict. In the Hobbesian view, people generally pursue their self-
interests, such as material gain, personal safety, and social reputation, and make enemies without
caring if they harm others in the process. Since people are determined to achieve their self-
interests, the result is often conflict and resistance without a fitting government to maintain
safety.
Hobbes also pointed out that humans are rational enough to realize that the self-interested nature
of people would lead to crime and inevitable conflict due to the alienation and exclusion of some
members of society. To avoid this, people enter into a social contract with the government so that
it will protect them from human predicaments. The role of the state is to enforce the social
contract. But crimes may still occur even if after governments perform their duties. In this case,
Hobbes argued that the punishment for crime must be greater than the benefit that comes from
committing the crime. Deterrence is the reason individuals are punished for violating the social
contract, and it serves to maintain the agreement between the state and the people in the form of
a workable social contract.
Cesare Beccaria
Cesare Beccaria, argued that since people are rationally self-interested, they will not commit
crimes if the costs of committing crimes prevail over the benefits of engaging in undesirable acts.
In Beccaria’s view, swift and certain punishment are the best means of preventing and
controlling crime. He emphasized that laws should be published so that people may know what
they represent—their intent, as well as their purpose. He was against torture and secret
accusations, and demanded they be abolished. Furthermore, he rejected the use of capital
punishment and suggested that it be replaced by imprisonment.
According to Beccaria, jails should be more humane and the law should not distinguish between
the rich and the poor. Judges should determine guilt and the application of the law, rather than
the spirit of the law. Legislators should pass laws that define crimes and they must provide
specific punishments for each crime. To have a deterrent value, punishment must be
proportionate to the crime committed.
Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Bentham, a contemporary of Beccaria, was one of the most prominent 18th-century
intellectuals on crime. He argued that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two
sovereign masters, “pain and pleasure”. The duty of the state in Bentham’s view was “to promote
the happiness of the society, by punishing and rewarding”. The object of the law is to widen the
happiness of the people by increasing the pleasure and lessening the pain of the community.
Punishment, in excess of what is essential to deter people from violating the law, is unjustified.
The theory of deterrence that has developed from the work of Hobbes, Beccaria, and Bentham
relies on three individual components: severity, certainty, and celerity. The more severe a
punishment, it is thought, the more likely that a rationally calculating human being will desist
from criminal acts. To prevent crime, therefore, criminal law must emphasize penalties to
encourage citizens to obey the law. Punishment that is too severe is unjust, and punishment that
is not severe enough will not deter criminals from committing crimes. In short, deterrence
theorists believe that if punishment is severe, certain, and swift, a rational person will measure
the gains and losses before engaging in crime and will be deterred from violating the law if the
loss is greater than the gain.
From a deterrence standpoint, any type of punishment (e.g., monetary, informal, incapacitative,
corporal) has a potential deterrent effect as long as it is perceived as a severe, certain, and swift
sanction.
The research literature on the effectiveness of criminal punishments outlines the four major
types of deterrence, which include the following:
 Specific deterrence involves the effectiveness of punishment on that particular
individual’s future behavior. Recidivism rates (e.g., rates of repeat offending among
prior offenders) are often used to measure the specific deterrent value of punishments.
 General deterrence asks whether the punishment of particular offenders deters other
people from committing deviance. A comparison of crime rates over time or across
jurisdictions is typically used to ascertain the general deterrent value of punishment.
 Marginal deterrence focuses on the relative effectiveness of different types of
punishments as either general or specific deterrents. For example, if recidivism rates
for drunk drivers are higher for those who receive monetary fines than those who
received jail time, jail time would be rated higher in its marginal deterrent value as a
specific deterrent for drunk driving. Similarly, debates about capital punishment often
focus on the marginal deterrent value of life imprisonment compared to the death
penalty as a general deterrent for murder.
 Partial deterrence refers to situations in which the threat of sanction has some deterrent
value even when the sanction threats do not lead to law abiding behavior. For example,
if a thief picked or “lifted” someone’s wallet rather than robbing them at gunpoint
(because the thief was fearful of the more serious penalty for committing an armed
robbery), the thief would be treated as a “successful” case of partial deterrence.
Similarly, tougher fines for speeding passed in a jurisdiction would serve as a partial
deterrent under these two conditions:
(1) the average motorist under the new law exceeded the speed limit by 5 miles an hour and
(2) the average motorist under the old law exceeded the speed limit by 10 miles an hour. The
average motorist is still exceeding the speed limit but he or she nonetheless is driving slower.
Empirical efforts to assess the effectiveness of deterrence are limited by several basic factors.
First, persons may abide by laws or desist in deviant behavior for a variety of reasons other than
the looming threat or fear of legal sanctions. Some of these non-deterrence constraints on
behavior include one’s moral/ethical principles, religious beliefs, physical inability to commit the
deviant act, and lack of opportunity. Second, neither swift nor certain punishment exists in most
legal systems in the contemporary world. The majority of criminal offenses are typically
unknown to the legal authorities and, even among the known offenses, only a small proportion
result in an arrest and conviction. The typical criminal penalty and civil suits are often imposed
or resolved months, if not years, after the initial violation. Third, the severity of punishment
actually received by offenders is often far less than mandated by law, due to the operation of
such factors as plea bargaining, charge reductions, jury nullifications, executive clemency and
pardons, and “good time” provisions. Under these conditions, it is unsurprising that the deterrent
effect of criminal and civil sanctions has not been clearly demonstrated across a variety of
contexts.
It is true that deterrence as one of the purposes of punishment has been very widely
recognized, but the punishment does not have that effect in all the cases. In many cases offences
are committed under the heat of passion or extreme excitement, or provocation, where the
offender loses his mental balance and commits the offence without applying his mind to the
consequences. In these cases the punishment hardly works as a deterrent. Secondly, when the
offender is once punished, the punishment, to a certain extent, loses its rigour for him and once
an offender undergoes imprisonment, he is no longer afraid of it to the same degree as he was
before he served his first term. Thus, the punishment has little deterrent effect upon the offender
who has suffered the penalty.
 Does deterrence work ?
13.4 Retributive theory
Retribution theory has been regarded as a very important feature in the punitive scheme.
Retribution is the theory that punishment is justified because it is deserved. Systems of
retribution for crime have long existed, with the best known from Biblical times, calling for “an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life”. This theory is based on the idea of
vindictive justice. The principle is that if a man has caused the loss of a man's eye, his eye one
shall cause to be lost; if he has shattered a man's limb, one shall shatter his limb; if a man has
made the tooth of a man that is his equal fall out, one shall make his tooth fall out. This is to pay
back the wrong-doer for his wrong-doing. It means that the wrong-doer has to be made to suffer
by way of retaliation, even if no benefit results thereby to him or to others. Historically, one of
the aggrieved family members used to take revenge by way of murdering the other party’s family
member. Later, the state took away the right of retaliation from individuals because it was
believed that since the criminal has broken the law and hurt someone, he deserves to suffer. Then
system of punishment by the state started.
According to great German philosopher, Hegel punishment ‘annuls’ the crime. It aims at
restoring the social balance disturbed by the offender. The offender should receive as much pain
and suffering as inflicted by him on his victim to assuage the angry sentiments of the victim and
the community. Retribution rests on the notion that if a person has knowingly done wrong, he
deserves to be punished. A principle which most retributivists seem to accept is that a person
should not be punished unless he is guilty of an offence. That principle is referred to as
“retribution in distribution’. A further limitation on retributive punishment is that the punishment
should fit the crime. A sentencer should take into account the seriousness of the offence, the
culpability of the offender, and the degree to which punishment will affect the offender. This is
recognized as virtually impossible, and a more usual approach is to make the penalty
proportionate to the crime alone.
Retributivists believe that wrongdoers deserve to be punished and that the punishment imposed
should be in proportion to the wrongdoing the offender committed. A retributive theory sees the
primary justification in the fact that an offence has been committed which deserves the
punishment of the offender. A number of explanations have been suggested to justify retribution,
including the notion that retribution is a payment of what is owed; that is, offenders who are
punished are “paying their debt to society”.
As Kant argues in a famous passage:
Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the
criminal himself or civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the
ground that he has committed a crime; for a human being can never be manipulated merely as a
means to the purposes of someone else ..... He must first of all be found to be deserving of
punishment before any consideration is given of the utility of this punishment for himself or his
fellow citizens.
Kant argues that retribution is not just a necessary condition for punishment but also a sufficient
one. Punishment is an end in itself. Retribution could also be said to be the 'natural' justification,
in the sense that man thinks it quite natural and just that a bad person ought to be punished and a
good person rewarded.
However 'natural' retribution might seem, it can also be seen as Bentham saw it, that is as adding
one evil to another, base and repugnant, or as an act of wrath or vengeance.
Therefore as we consider divine punishment we must bear in mind, as Rowell(1974)

says, The doctrine of hell was framed in terms of a retributive theory of punishment, the wicked
receiving their just deserts, with no thought of the possible reformation of the offender. In so far
as there was a deterrent element, it related to the sanction hell provided for ensuring moral
conduct during a man's earthly life .
In modern times retribution is used in more than one sense. In the first sense the idea is
that of satisfaction by the State of the wronged individual’s desire to be avenged; in the second it
is that of the states marking its disapproval of the breaking of its laws by a punishment
proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In modern penological thought retribution is not so
much considered in the sense of vengeance but in the sense of reprobation. Retribution is also
used by some people in the sense of expiation or atonement. According to them the offender
must suffer some evil not in order to satisfy an aggrieved individual’s desire for revenge, nor as a
mark of public disapproval of his conduct but for his own sake so that he may come to realise the
justice of his punishment.
Some supporting arguments for retribution may be summarized as follows:
1. Retribution connects the offender to correct values; it sends the message to the
wrongdoer that what he did was wrong. Retribution should, therefore, not be confused
with revenge.
2. It would be unfair to victims if there is no retribution against the wrongdoers.
3. It would be unfair to the law-abiding citizens if the offenders get undeserved benefit
through their criminal acts.
These postulates of retributivism have been criticized. For instance, it has been asked that if the
individuals have no moral right to exact retribution, how a group of individuals in the society can
acquire such a moral right.
Retributive theories of punishment argue that punishment should be imposed for past crimes and
that it should be appropriate to the nature of the crime committed; that is, the severity of the
punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. Sometimes, retributive
punishment is confused with notions of revenge.
Critics of retribution theories of punishment argue that retribution is basically nothing more than
vengeance. However, Nozick(1981) argues that there is a clear distinction between the two
because “retribution is done for a wrong, while revenge may be done for an injury or harm or
slight and need not be a wrong” .He also points out that whereas retribution sets a limit for the
amount of punishment according to the seriousness of the wrong, no limit need be set for
revenge. In this sense, therefore, revenge is personal whereas the person dispensing retributive
punishment may well have no personal tie to the victim. As Nozick points out, “revenge involves
a particular emotional tone, pleasure in the suffering of another”. A further distinction between
the two is that retribution in the form of punishment is inflicted only on the offender, but revenge
may be carried out on an innocent person, perhaps a relative of the perpetrator.
Retribution as a penal philosophy has been criticized on several fronts when it is actually applied
in practice.
First, strict retributive sanctions based solely on the nature of the offense (e.g., mandatory
sentences for drug trafficking, the use of firearms in the commission of crimes) are often
criticized as being overly rigid, especially in societies that recognize degrees of individual
culpability and blameworthiness.
Second, the principle of lex talionis (i.e., the “eye for an eye” dictum that punishment should
correspond in degree and kind to the offense) has limited applicability. For example, how do you
sanction in kind acts of drunkenness, drug abuse, adultery, prostitution, and/or traffic violations
like speeding?
Third, the assumption of proportionality of punishments (i.e., that punishment should be

commensurate or proportional to the moral gravity of the offense) is untenable in most pluralistic
societies because there is often widespread public disagreement on the severity of particular
offenses.
Under these conditions, a retributive sentencing system that espouses proportional sanctions
would be based on the erroneous assumption that there is public consensus in the rankings of the
moral gravity of particular types of crime.
The main defect of this theory is that it does not regard punishment as a measure of social
security and welfare but considers punishment as an end in itself. It neglects the utilitarian aspect
of punishment. Punishment is in itself an evil and can be justified only as the means of attaining
a greater good. Retribution is in itself not a remedy for the mischief of the offence but an
aggravation of it.
Punishment may be looked at from two different aspects. It can be regarded as a method of
protecting society by reducing the occurrence of criminal behaviour or it can be considered as an
end in itself. In modern times it is the former aspect which is emphasized because social welfare
is considered to be of paramount importance. Ethical approach to crime which is the main basis
of retributive theory is gradually losing ground in modern times
According to Hegel punishment ‘ _______’ the crime.
13.5 Reformative theory
Reformation of a criminal, in the widest sense of the term, means such a change in his mental
habitus that he will not offend again. When it is said that punishment aims at bringing about such
a change, reformation may either be looked upon merely as a means for the protection of society;
for the reformed evil-doer no longer constitutes a danger to its peace and good order. Or it may
be conceived as an end in itself, as the final object of punishment. The criminal is looked upon as
an object of pity, not of hatred, and punishment becomes a work of charity.
Reformist looks at sanction as instrument of rehabilitation and tries to mould the behavior of
criminal on the premises that criminal is not born but made by the environment of society.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of society to reform him by adopting certain suitable methods.
The aim of law is not to give the punishment to the offender rather to reform the criminal. This is
the precise base of this theory. Killing and punishing the criminal will not eradicate the crime
from the society rather we need an approach where we can brainwash the criminals and make
them fit members of society. This approach rejects the deterrence and retributive elements of
punishments and impeccably advocates reformative approach on simple idea that, ‘we must cure
our criminal, not kill them’. As against deterrent and retributive theory, reformative theory is a
fresh approach to the problem of crime and criminals. Individualized treatments became the
cardinal principle for reformation of offenders. The view found expression in the reformative
theory of punishment.
This view brought change in the attitude of the offender so as to rehabilitate him as a law
abiding citizen. Thus, punishment is used as a measure to reclaim the offender and not to torture
or harass him. The reformative view of penology suggests that punishment is only justifiable if it
looks to the future and not to the past. It emphasizes on the renewal of the criminal and the
beginning of a new life for him.
This is perhaps the most humane way of looking at the criminal i.e. reforming the legal
offenders through individual treatment. Not looking to criminals as inhuman this theory puts
forward the changing nature of the modern society where it presently looks into the fact that all
other theories have failed to put forward any such stable theory, which would prevent the
occurrence of further crimes. Though it may be true that there has been a greater onset of crimes
today than it was earlier, but it may also be argued that many of the criminals are also getting
reformed and leading a law-abiding life all-together. Reformative techniques are much close to
the deterrent techniques.
This theory aims at rehabilitating the offender to the norms of the society i.e. into law-
abiding member. The mechanisms by which the transformation takes place it seems that the
inmates of the peno-correctional institutions can lead a life like a normal citizen. Reformative
theory condemns all kinds of corporal punishments. These correctional institutions have either
maximum or minimum security arrangements. The reformists advocate humanly treatment of
inmates inside the prison institutions. It also suggests that the prisoners should be properly
trained to adjust themselves to free life in society after their release from the institution. The
agencies such as probation and parole are best measures to reclaim offenders to society a
reformed persons.
These prisons or correctional homes as they are termed ‘humanly’ treat the inmates and
release them as soon as they feel that they are fit to mix up with the other members of the
community. The reformation generally takes place either through probation or parole as
measures for reforming criminals. It looks at the seclusion of the criminals from the society as an
attempt to reform them and to prevent the person from social ostracism.
Reformative view has doubtful utility in certain cases. First, there are persons who are
incurably bad. To them crime is a habit and they are beyond the reach of any reformative
programme. The protection of society demands at least a measure of disablement to restrain such
persons from further harmful activity. Secondly, if the offenders are kept in prisons very
comfortably, the prisons might turn into dwelling houses at least, for the poor and unemployed,
and may lose their utility to serve as effectual deterrent to those classes from which criminals are
chiefly drawn. This theory admits only such types of punishments which are educative and
discipline the criminal, not those which inflict pain on the offender. In modern times reformative
measures are adopted in cases of juvenile offenders. In prison they are given some education and
are subjected to some such prison programmes so that they can learn some kind of work which
may help them in earning their livelihood after coming out of the prison. The advocates of this
theory emphasize that when the prisoner goes to jail he finds himself quite cut off from the rest
of the world. The confinement, the deprivation of social intercourse and other ways of subjection
to rigid discipline never allows him to develop his character. Therefore, what is important is the
reformation of the offender by making him worthy of living in the society. The theory works
well in case of young offenders and some sexual offenders but has no appreciable effect upon
habitual, professional and hardened criminals.
Many other reformatory programmes have been suggested by reformists. The net result
of a good reformatory programme should be to concentrate the attention of the inmates upon the
opportunities for reform and training rather than upon the prospect of release or escape..
There are number objections against reformative theory.
1. Reformative theory expects better infrastructure and facilities in prison, proper co-ordination
between different discipline and persistent effort on their part to mould criminal. It requires huge
investments which poor country cannot afford it.
2. Millions of innocent people who have high regards for law are finding difficult to get basic
amenities postulates ethical justification for providing better facilities inside prison.
3. Moreover, the rationality of the theory is more towards incentives for the commission of crime
rather than prevention.
4. Reformation can work out on those people who can be reformed, there are people who cannot
be reformed like hardcore criminal, highly educated and professional criminals.
5. This theory neglects potential offenders and persons who have committed crime but not within
the arms of law. Further, it overlooks the claims of victims of crimes.
6. Corrupt social environmental is responsible for crime but not individual responsibility, is the
philosophy of reformative which is hard to digest.
Nevertheless, it would be unfair to dismiss the noble concept of reformation as a total failure. All
are familiar with the instances in which unskilled, uneducated and apparently incorrigible
criminals have developed skills in prison, which have transformed them into highly useful
persons.Though this theory works stupendously for the correction of juveniles and first time
criminals, but in the case of hardened criminals this theory may not work with the effectiveness.
In these cases come the importance of the deterrence theories and the retributive theories. Thus
each of these four theories have their own pros and cons and each being important in it, none can
be ignored as such.
What is the aim of law ?
_________________________________________________________
What is the aim of Reformative Theory ?
______________________________________________________
13.6 Preventive Theory: Preventive philosophy of punishment is based on the

proposition ‘not to avenge crime but to prevent it’. Thus, the purpose of punishment is to serve
as a preventive measure in commission of crimes. The fear of punishment prevents the
prospective law breaker from violating the law. It presupposes that need for punishment of crime
arises simply out of social necessities. In punishing a criminal, the community protects itself
against anti-social acts which endanger social order in general or person or property of its
members.
In ancient times the offender was prevented from crime again by disabling him
permanently. For example, the punishment for theft was cutting of the hand of the offender. The
most effective kind of punishment is the death penalty. It is awarded only in serious offences like
murder and treason. These offences are considered to be most serious and their repetition as most
dangerous for the society. Therefore, death penalty is considered to be the appropriate
punishment for such offences.
In modern times some other measures of prevention are also applied, such as forfeiture of
office, suspension and cancellation of licences for dealing in goods or driving etc.
Prevention as a purpose of punishment does not seem to be very convincing and does not
work very successfully in checking crime. Persons committing crime under extraordinary
psychological stress seldom repeat the crime. To punish a man who commits a crime under such
a pressure would be meaningless. On the other hand punishment has a demoralising effect upon
him and after suffering the sentence he becomes fearless and shameless and may possibly be
turned into a professional. Every man enjoys his own reputation and is conscious enough to
protect it. Once he chances to commit a crime and is punished, he finds that his social reputation
has been affected and this makes him feel free to repeat the crime because no more he considers
himself to be respect by the society.
13.7 Summary
All the three theories of punishment are also known as goals of correction in sociology. The
different theories highlight different forms of punishment. What kind of punishment is to be
awarded, depends upon the kind of crime committed by the offender. Classical theorists were of
the view that punishment must fit the crime. But in modern times, the aim of law is not to punish
the criminal but to reform the criminal. On the other hand, if we see from the victim’s view
point, then victim will be satisfied in the punishment and not in the reformation of the criminal.
Some kind of punishment has to be there to deter the offender and others. No one theory would
be useful in today’s times, it is the combination of deterrence and reformation, which will bring
desired results for the society and the individual.
Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Doherty, Michael , (2001) Criminology, Old bailey Press, London.
Moyer, I. L. (2001). Criminological theory: Traditional and nontraditional voices and themes.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Williams, F. P., & McShane, M. D. (1999). Criminological theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
13.9 Model questions:
Q1: ‘Aim of law is not punish the criminal but to reform the criminal’ discuss this statement
while explaining reformative theory of punishment.
Q2: What are the various theories of punishment? Discuss all in detail.
Q3: According to you which is the best form of punishment and why?
Lesson 14
Penology in India and Indian Penal Code
Structure
14.0Objectives
14.1Introduction
14.2Modern Penology
14.3Penal Policy in India
14.4 Indian Penal code
14.5Classification of Crime
14.6 Classification of Offences under Indian Penal Code
14.7Punishments under different Sections
14.8Summary
14.10Model Questions
14.0 Objectives
After going through this lesson, you shall be able to:
 understand modern penology and penal policy in India.
 know meaning and classification of, Classification of offences under Indian Penal
Code.
14.1 Introduction
Criminology is one of the branches of criminal science which is concerned with social
study of crime and criminal behaviour. It aims at discovering the causes of criminality and
effective measures to combat crimes. It also deals with the custody, treatment, prevention and
control of crime which is termed as penology.
It has been generally accepted that the attitude towards crime and criminal at a given time
in a society represents the basic values of that society. By and large, three types of reactions are
discernible in various societies. The first is a traditional reaction which regards criminal as
basically depraved and dangerous person for whom infliction of punishment is the only
alternative to eliminate him from normal society. This punitive approach, however, represents
the earlier stages of development of penology and no longer finds support in modern times. The
second reaction treats criminal as a victim of his circumstances and a product of multiple factors
operating within the society. Thus, criminal is treated as a sick person requiring therapeutic
treatment. The third and more recent reaction to criminal is to be found in preventive approach
which lays greater emphasis on eliminating conditions which are responsible for criminality in
the offender. It must, however, be stated that these reactions towards criminal are co-extensive
and quite often overlap one another. The difference between them is to be found in their focus of
attention.
According to the principle of utilitarian hedonism, propounded by Bentham, punishment

should not exceed more than what is absolutely necessary to produce the desired effect on the
criminal and society. For this purpose, the personality of the offender in physio-psychological
terms has to be understood in the background of his social surroundings. It has been realized that
feeling of inadequacy, frustration and emotional insecurity often play a dominant role in giving
rise to the criminal tendency. More recently, penological researches have evolved a new thinking
based on the premise that crime is a social fact and human act, therefore, the process of dealing
with a criminal does not come to an end by imposing punishment on him in accordance with law.
His after care for resocialisation and reformation is equally important. This aspect of treatment of
offender must also be taken into account while drawing up any programme for the prevention of
crime and treatment of offenders.
However, during the last two hundred years, the practice of punishment and public
opinion concerning it, have been profoundly modified due to the rapidly changing social values
and sentiments of the people. The crucial problem today is whether a criminal is to be regarded
by society as a nuisance to be abated or an enemy to be crushed or a patient to be treated or a
refractory child to be disciplined? Or should he be regarded as none of these things but simply be
punished to show to others that anti-social conduct does not finally pay.
With the changing patterns of modern societies, the approach of penologists towards
punishment has also undergone a radical change. The penologists today are concerned with
crucial problem as to the end of punishment and its place in penal policy.
14.2 Modern Penology

With new criminological developments, particularly in the field of penology, it has been
generally accepted that punishment must be in proportion to the gravity of the offence. It has
been further suggested that reformation of criminal rather than his expulsion from society is
more purposeful for his rehabilitation. With this aim in view, the modern penologists have
focused their attention on individualization of offender through treatment methods. Today, old
barbarous methods of punishment such as, mutilation, branding, hanging, burning, stoning,
flogging, amputation, starving the criminal to death or subjecting him to pillory or poetic
punishment, etc. are completely abandoned. Pillory was a method of corporal punishment under
which the offender was subjected to public ridicule by exposing him to punishment in public
places. Different poetic punishments were provided for different crimes. Thus cutting off hands
for theft, taking off tongue for the offence of perjury, emasculation for rape, shaving off the head
of a woman in case she committed a sex crime or whipping her in Public Street and similar other
modes were common forms of punishment during middle ages. Modern penologists have
substituted new forms of penal sanctions for the old methods of sentencing. The present modes
of punishment commonly include imposition of monetary fines, segregation of the offender
temporarily or permanently through imprisonment or compensation by way of damages from the
wrong doer in case of civil injury.
Thus, prevention of crime and protection of society are the main objects of punishment. It
therefore, follows that no single theory of punishment will serve the real purpose. The modern
penological thinking favours rationalization of punishment by taking into consideration the
various approaches in their proper perspective and making use of them to suit the given situation
and requirement of the offender in accordance with the principle of individualization.
14.3 Penal Policy in India

The penal reforms in India during the past few decades have brought about a remarkable
change in the attitude of people towards the offenders. The old concepts about crime, criminal
and convicts have radically changed. The emphasis has now shifted from deterrence to
reformation of the offenders. The age old discriminatory and draconian punishments no longer
find place in the modern penal system.
In ancient times, four main forms of punishments were known to have existed,
Admonition or warning (Vakdanda); Remonstrance (Prayaschitta); Fine (Arthadanda), and
Imprisonment, death or mutilation (Vadhadanda, Mritudanda or Aung Vichhela).
The first offenders were usually punished with admonition. Remonstrance or penance
was regarded as an adequate punishment for improper acts perilous to society. If the wrong doer
caused injury to someone’s property or person, he was punished with fine while those who
committed serious crimes were imprisoned, amputated or done away to death.
During medieval period the Muslim rulers introduced their own penal laws in India. The
system being retributive in nature and irrational and discriminatory in its application, failed to
meet the ends of justice. The irrationalities of Muslim criminal law provided an opportunity for
British law administrators to substitute their own system of laws with necessary modifications so
as to suit the needs of India. The new system introduced by the British rulers was far more
rational, impartial and reasonable than their predecessors and was, therefore, readily accepted by
the people of India.
The common methods of punishment included the sentence of death, deportation,

transportation, solitary confinement, imprisonment and fines. Petty offences were punishable
with fine. A well organised system of police was introduced to suppress crimes and apprehend
criminals. The advance of penology in Anglo-American World during 18th and 19th centuries had
its own impact on Indian penal system. Particularly, during the last fifty years significant penal
reforms have been introduced in India. The sentence of transportation, mutilation, solitary,
confinement, whipping or punishing the offenders in public place are completely abolished and
new reformative methods such as parole, probation, open air prisons, borstals, reformatories etc.
have been adopted for the rehabilitation of offenders. The modern techniques of handling the
offender have proved a great inasmuch as they offer a ‘chance’ to an inmate to return to society
as a law abiding citizen and this inculcates in him a sense of ‘hope’ that he is going to be trusted
by the society after his release from the institution. Modern penologists generally agree that
reformation of offenders should be the basic purpose of every penal system but at the same time
the importance of deterrence should not be undermined. Thus, reformation may be used as a
general method of treating the offenders but those who do not respond favourably to this
corrective method of treatment must be severely punished. The penal measures must be directed
to show society’s abhorrence to crime.
14.4 Indian Penal Code

To think of a crimeless society is a myth. In fact, there can be no society without the
problem of crime and criminals. The concept of crime is essentially concerned with the social
order. It is well known that man’s interests are best protected as a member of the community.
Everyone owes certain duties to his fellow men and at the same time has certain rights and
privileges which he expects other to ensure for him. Although most people believe in ‘live and
let live’ principle yet there are a few who, for some reason or the other, deviate from this normal
behavioural pattern and associate themselves with anti-social elements. This obviously imposes
an obligation on the State to maintain normalcy in society. This arduous task of protecting the
law abiding citizens and punishing the law breakers vests with the State which performs it
through the instrumentality of law.
There has been considerable increase in crime rate in recent decades. The phenomenon,
however, is not particular to India alone but is persistent all over the globe. In fact, the incidence
of crime in western countries is far greater than that of India, perhaps because of the variance of
social conditions in these countries. The factors such as greater control of family over the wards
and respect for morally and religion, etc. have acted as effective restraints to reduce the
incidence of crime in India. Generally, the upward trend in crime rate can be attributed to
modernization, urbanization, industrialization, advance of science and technology and growth of
civilization and advent of materialism. With economic growth, people’s craze for wealth and
other luxuries of life has increased beyond limits which cannot be quenched with the available
resources. Obviously, persons who cannot resist their temptations quite often resort to unlawful
means to meet their ulterior motives. Scientific know how has proved a boon to offenders in
carrying out their criminal activities with considerable case. They have provided better
opportunities for escape and avoid detection which has mitigated the risk involved in committing
crimes.
14.5 Classification of Crimes

There are a variety of crimes such as personal crimes, property crimes, occupational
crimes, political crimes, public order crimes, conventional crimes, organized crimes, professional
crimes, white collar crimes, sexual crimes, etc. Broadly speaking, these may be categorized into
three main heads, namely, (i) offences falling under Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) offences
under Indian Penal Code; and (iii) offences under local or special laws or enactments.
Some writers have preferred to classify crimes into legal, political, economic, social and
miscellaneous crimes.
1. Legal crimes can be termed as traditional crimes such as the theft, robbery, dacoity, rape,
hurt and rioting etc.
2. Political offences are those which are motivated politically or committed in violation of
the election laws or norms set out for the politicians in course of their political activities.
3. Economic crimes include white collar offences such as tax evasion, smuggling,
prostitution, gambling, foreign exchange violations, offences under the MRTP
(Amendment) Act, 1991 etc.
4. Social crimes are those which are committed under social legislation such as the Child
Marriage Restraint Act, 1978; Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956; Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1956;
Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987; The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as
amended in 1983 and 1986; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000;
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 etc.
5. All other remaining crimes which are committed under local or special acts, are termed as
miscellaneous crimes, for example, offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954; Drugs Act, 1940; Consumer’s Protection Act, 1986; Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 etc.
More recently, a new species of crime known as cybercrime has emerged as a result of
development of computer science and information technology during last quarter of the 20 th
Century. These are crimes either computer generated crime or where computer software is itself
a target of crime. A special Act called the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been enacted to
tackle these offences.
14.6 Classification of Offences under Indian Penal Code

Under the Indian Penal Code, various offences have been classified into seven broad
categories on statistical basis. They are:
1. Offences against person.
2. Offences against property.
3. Offences relating to documents.
4. Offences affecting mental order.

5. Offences against public tranquility.
6. Offences against State.
7. Offences relating to public servants.
This classification seems to be more rational and elaborate from the point of view of
administration of criminal law and penal justice.
The Indian Penal Code Bill was passed by the Legislative Council and it received the
assent of the Governor-General on 6th October, 1860. It came on the Statute Book as the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).
This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code and shall (extend to the whole of Indian
(except the State of Jammu and Kashmir). The Act includes various categories of offences and
punishments related under different sections.
Punishments (Section 53 – 74)

Offenders are liable under this code for death; imprisonment for life; rigorous; simple
imprisonment; forfeiture of property; fine. (S. 53).
In every case in which sentence of death sentence has passed, Government may, without
the consent of the offender, commute punishment. (S. 54).
In every case in which death sentence has been passed, Government may, without the
consent of the offender, commute the punishment for term not exceeding fourteen years (S. 55).
Term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a
fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment maximum fixed for the offence,
provided it is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine (S. 65).
If the offence is punishable with fine only, imprisonment imposed in default of payment
of fine shall be simple. Term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed; 2
two months when the amount of the fine shall not exceed Rs. 50/-; 4 months when the fine shall
not exceed Rs. 100/-; and not exceeding 6 months - in any other case. (S. 67).
In offence made up in parts, any of which parts in itself is an offence, offender shall not
be punished for more than one of such offences, unless it is so expressly provided. Where
offence is falling within two/more separate definitions or where there are several acts of which
one/more than one would by itself/themselves constitute offence, and when combined constitute
different offence, offender can be punished only with that punishment which Court tries him
could award for any of such offences. (S. 71).
In case person is convicted of offence for which Court has power to sentence him to
rigorous imprisonment, Court may order solitary confinement for him for any portion/portions of
the imprisonment not exceeding 3 months in the whole. (S. 73).
Solitary confinement shall not exceed 14 days at a time, with no less duration intervals
and when imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, solitary confinement shall not
exceed 7 days in any one month of whole imprisonment with intervals of no less duration. (S.
74).
General Exceptions
Nothing is an offence which is done:
By a person who is or who by reason of a mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to
be, bound by law to do it. (S. 76)
By any person justified by law, or who by reason of mistake of fact in good faith,
believes himself to be justified by law in doing it. (S. 79).
By accident/misfortune and without any criminal intention in the doing of a lawful act in
a lawful manner. (S. 80).
With knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal
intention and to prevent/avoid other harm. (S. 81).
By child under seven years of age. (S. 82).
By a child above seven years but under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity
of understanding consequences of his conduct. (S. 83).
By a person who at the time of doing it was of unsound mind. (S. 84).
By a person who at the time of doing it was under intoxication, provided that the thing
which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. (S.
85).
In good faith for the benefit of a person under 12 years of age or of unsound mind or by
consent of the guardian (S. 89).
In exercise of right of private defence. (S. 96).
Every person has a right to defend his own/any other person’s body or property against
any offence affecting human body or against theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass or
attempt to commit such acts. (S. 97).
Right of private defence of the body extends to voluntary causing of death/ any other
harm if assault reasonably causes apprehension of death, grievous hurt or assault with an
intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, Kidnapping/abducting, wrongfully
confining a person. (S. 100).
Right of private defence of property extends to voluntary causing of death in robbery,
house breaking by night, mischief by fire or theft, mischief, or house-trespass. (S. 103).
Right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the property commences. (S. 105).
Abetment
A person abets the doing of a thing (i) who instigates or (ii) engages with one/more
persons in any conspiracy, if any act/illegal omission takes place in pursuance of and in order to
doing of that thing or (iii) Intentionally aids it. (S. 107).
A person is said to abet when he abets either commission of an offence/ act which would
be an offence, if committed by a capable person with same intention of knowledge as that of
abettor. (S. 108).
If the Act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment, abettor shall be punished
with punishment provided for offence. (S. 109).
When act is abetted but different act is done, abetter is liable for act done in same manner
and to same extent as if he had directly abetted it. (S. 111).
Whoever abets offence punishable with death/imprisonment for life shall, if that offence
be not committed in consequence of abetment, be punished with imprisonment which may
extend to 7 years and fine. (S. 115).
Whoever abets offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that offence be not
committed in consequence of the abetment be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
one-fourth of the longest term provided for that offence or fine or both. (S. 116).
Criminal Conspiracy
When two/more persons agree to do/cause to be done, an illegal Act/an act which is not
illegal but done by illegal means, such agreement is designated as a criminal conspiracy. (S.
120A).
Whoever is party to conspiracy to commit offence punishable with death/imprisonment
for life or rigorous imprisonment for 2 years or upwards shall be punished as an abettor. (S.
120B).
Offences Against State
Whoever attempts/abets/wages war against Government of India, shall be punished with
death or imprisonment for life and fine. (S. 121).
Whoever conspires to commit any offence punishable under Section 121, or conspires to
overawe Government, by means of criminal force, shall be punished with imprisonment for life
or for term which may extend to 10 years and fine. (S. 121A).
Whoever collects men/arms/ammunition/otherwise prepares to wage war against
Government of India shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term
not less than 10 years and fine. (S. 122).
Whoever by words/signs or otherwise brings/attempts to bring into hatred or contempt

towards Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 3 years to
which fine may be added or with the fine. (S. 124).
Offences Against Public Tranquility

Assembly of five/more persons is “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of them is
to overawe Government/public servant or to resist execution of any law/commit any
mischief/criminal trespass/ obtain possession of any property by force/ compel person to do what
he is not legally bound to do/omit to do what he is legally entitled to. (S. 141).
Whoever being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly,
intentionally joins it/ continues in it, is a member of unlawful assembly. (S. 142).
Member of unlawful assembly shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to 6 months, or with fine, or both. (S. 143).
Whenever force or violence is used by unlawful assembly every member of such
assembly in prosecution of its common object, is guilty of rioting. (S. 146)
Whoever is guilty of rioting shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 2
years or with fine or with both. (S. 147).
If an offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the
common object or as members knew to be likely to be committed, every person who at the time
of the committing of that offence is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence. (S.
149).
Contempt of Lawful Authority of Public Servants
Whoever absconds to avoid being served with a summons/notice/order proceeding from
any public servant, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to
1 month or fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or both (S. 172).
Person legally bound to furnish information to public servant, furnishes as true,
information which he knows/has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or
both. (S. 177).
Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows/believes to be
false, intending to cause him to do/ omit to do anything which such public servant ought not
to/omit if true State of facts were known to him or uses public servants’ lawful power to
injury/annoyance of any person shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 6
months or fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or both. (S. 182).
Persons voluntarily obstructing any public servant in discharge of his public functions
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 months or fine which may extend to
Rs. 500 or both. (S. 186).
Whoever knowing that by order of public servant he is directed to abstain from certain
act shall, if such disobedience causes annoyance/ injury/ risk of obstruction to any person be
punished with simple imprisonment for terms which may extend to 1 month or fine which may
extend to Rs. 200 or both and if such disobedience causes/tends to cause danger to human life,
health or safety or causes or tends to cause riot/affray shall be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to 6 months or fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or both. (S. 188).
False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice

Any person being legally bound by oath to State truth, makes false statement which he
either knows/believes to be false/does not believe to be true is said to give false evidence. (S.
191).
Whoever causes any circumstance to exist/ makes any false entry in any book/record
makes false statement intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may
appear in evidence and such circumstance/ false entry/ false statement may cause any person
who in such proceeding is to form opinion, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point
material to result of such proceeding, is said to “fabricate false evidence”. (S. 192).
Whoever intentionally gives/ fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in
any proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years, and shall
also be liable to fine. (S. 193).
Whoever corruptly uses/attempts to use as true or genuine any evidence which he knows
to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in same manner as if he gave or fabricated false
evidence. (S. 196).
Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that offence has been committed, gives
any information which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to 2 years of fine or both. (S. 203).
Whenever any person convicted/charged with an offence, being in lawful custody,
escapes from such custody, and if offence for which, person was in custody or is ordered to be
apprehended is punishable with (i) death: he shall be punished with imprisonment, which may
extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine and (ii) if offence is punishable with life
imprisonment/ imprisonment for 10 years, he shall be punished with imprisonment which may
extend to 3 years with/without the fine and (ii) if offence is punishable with imprisonment which
may extend to 1 year and not to 10 years – shall be punished with ¼th part of longest term of
imprisonment provided for such offence. (S. 216).
Whoever any person convicted/charged with an offence, being in lawful custody,
harbours them/any of them, with intention of facilitating commission of such robbery or dacoity
or of screening them/any of them from punishment, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. (S. 216A).
Offences Relating to Coin and Government Stamps

Coin is a metal used as money, and stamped and issued by the authority of some State or
sovereign power in order to be so used. (S. 230).
Whoever counterfeits/knowingly performs any part of process of counterfeiting coin,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine. (S. 231).
Whoever counterfeits/knowingly performs any part of process of counterfeiting, any
stamp issued by Government for purpose of revenue shall be punished with life
imprisonment/with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine. (S. 255).
Whoever uses as genuine any stamp, knowing it to be counterfeit of any stamp issued by
Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend
to 7 years or fine or both. (S. 260).
Offences Relating to Weights and Measures

Whoever fraudulently uses instrument for weighing which he knows to be false, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to 1 year or fine or both. (S. 264).
Whoever fraudulently uses false weight/false measure of length or capacity/fraudulently
uses any weight/measure of length or capacity as different weight or measure from what it is,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 1 year or fine or both. (S. 265).
Offences Affecting Public health, Safety, Convenience, Decency and Moral

Person is guilty of public nuisance when he does any Act or is guilty of an illegal
omission which causes any common injury/danger/ annoyance to public or to people in general
who dwell or occupy property in vicinity or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction,
danger/ annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common
nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage. (S. 268).
Whoever adulterates food/drink, so as to make such article noxious, intending to sell such
article as food/drink or knowing it likely that the same will be sold as food/ drink, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to 6 months or fine which may extend to Rs.
1000 or both. (S. 272).
Whoever adulterates any drug/medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen the
efficacy or change the operation of such drug or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold
or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for any medical purpose, as if it
had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
6 months, or fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or both. (S. 274).
Person driving any vehicle/riding on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as
to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to 6 months or, fine which may extend to Rs.
1000 or both. (S. 279).
Book/pamphlet/paper writing/drawing/ painting/ representation, figure or any other
object shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to prurient interest or if its
effect, or the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to lend to deprave and
corrupt person, who are likely, to read, see/hear the matter contained/embodied in it. (S. 292).
Whoever, to annoyance of others does any obscene act in any public place, or sings/
recites/ utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to 3 months or fine or both. (S. 294).
Offences Affecting Human Body

Offences Affecting Life
Whoever causes death by doing an act with (i) intention of causing death, (ii) intention of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or (iii) the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death, commits offence of culpable homicide. (S. 299).
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if (i) act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or (ii) If it is done with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of
the person to whom the harm is caused, or (iii) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or (iv) If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as aforesaid. (S. 300).
If a person, by doing anything which he intends/knows to cause death, commits culpable
homicide by causing death of any person whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be
likely to cause. (S. 301).
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and
fine. (S. 302).
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with life
imprisonment or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, & shall also be liable to fine if the
act is done with intention of causing death/likely to cause death or imprisonment which may
extend to 10 years or fine or both if act is done with knowledge but without intention to cause
death/likely to cause death. (S. 304).
Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before
her death she subjected to cruelty/ harassment by her husband/ his relative for or in connection
with demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband/ relative shall
be deemed to have caused her death. (S. 304B).
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to 19 years and fine. (S. 306).
Whoever does any act with such intention/knowledge that if he by that act caused death,
he would be guilty of murder shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years
and fine. (S. 307).
Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards such commission, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for term which may extend to 1 year or with fine or both. (S.
309).
Hurt
Whoever causes bodily pain/ disease/ infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. (S.
319).
Grievous hurt are emasculation, permanent privation of sight of either eye or hearing of
either ear or privation of any member/joint or permanent disfiguration of the head/ face or
fracture/ dislocation of a bone or tooth or any hurt which endangers life or which causes the
sufferer to be during space of 20 days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits. (S. 320).
Whoever does any act with intention of causing hurt or with knowledge that he is likely
to cause hurt and does thereby cause hurt to any person is said to voluntarily cause hurt. (S. 321).
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be
likely to cause is grievous hurt and if hurt which he causes its grievous hurt is said to voluntarily
cause grievous hurt. (S. 322).
Whoever causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 1 year or
fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or both. (S. 323).
Whoever causes voluntarily grievous hurts shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to 7 years and fine. (S. 325).
Wrongful Restraint & Wrongful Confinement

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent him from proceeding in any
direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
(S. 339).
Whoever wrongfully obstructs any person so as to prevent him from proceeding in any
direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
(S. 340).
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment
which may extend to 1 month or fine which may extend to Rs. 500 or both. (S. 341).
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to one year or fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or both. (S. 342).
Criminal Force and Assault

Whoever intentionally uses force to any person without that person’s consent, to commit
any offence to cause injury/ fear/ annoyance to that person, is said to use criminal force. (S. 350).
Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that
such gesture/ preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that such person is about to
use criminal force to that person, is said to commit as assault. (S. 351).
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and
sudden provocation shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months or
with fine which may extend to Rs. 500 or both. (S. 352).
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman intending to outrage her modesty,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine or both. (S.
354).
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person on grave and sudden provocation
given by that person shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to 1 month
or fine which may extend to Rs. 200 or both. (S. 358).
Kidnapping, Abduction, Slavery and Forced Labour

Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful
guardianship. (S. 359).
Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without his/lawful guardian’s
consent is said to kidnap that person from india. (S. 360).
Whoever takes/ entices any minor under 16 years of age if a male/under 18 years of age if
a female/ person of unsound mind out of keeping of lawful guardian without his consent is said
to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. (S. 361).
Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any
place, is said to abduct that person. (S. 362).
Kidnapper shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine.
(S. 363).
Whoever kidnaps/ abducts any person or keeps a person in order that such person may be
murdered or put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with life imprisonment or
rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine. (S. 364).
Whoever kidnaps/abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such
kidnapping/abduction and threatens to cause death/hurt to such person in order to compel
Government/ any other person to do/ abstain from doing any act/ to pay a ransom, shall be
punishable with death or life imprisonment and fine. (S. 364A).
Whoever imports/export/removes/buys/sells/disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts,
receives or detains against his will any person as slave, shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to 7 years and fine. (S. 370).
Sexual Offences
Man is said to commit “rape” who has sexual intercourse with a woman against her will,
without her consent/with her consent when such consent has been obtained by putting her/any
person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt/ with her consent when she suffered
unsoundness of mind or intoxication, or with/without her consent when she is under 16 years of
age. (S. 375).
Whoever commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than
7 years but which may be for life or which may extend to 10 years and fine unless the woman
raped is his own wife and not under 12 years in which case, he shall be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to 2 years or fine or both. (S. 376).
Offences Affecting Property

Theft
Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of
any person without that person’s consent moves in order to such taking is said to commit theft.
(S. 378).
Person committing theft shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3
years, or with fine, or both. (S. 379).
Extortion
Person intentionally putting any person in fear of any injury, and dishonestly including
person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property/valuable security/ anything signed or
sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion. (S. 383).
Extortionist shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or fine or
both. (S. 384).
Offences Relating to Marriage

Any man who by deceit causes woman to believe that she is lawfully married to him
when actually she is not and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. (S.
493).
Whoever, having a husband/wife having, remarries such marriage is void by reason of its
taking place during the life of such husband/wife, shall be punished with imprisonment which
Persons committing the offence defined in Section 494 having concealed the fact of the
former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted, shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine. (S. 495).
Whoever dishonestly or with fraudulent intention, goes through marriage ceremony
knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married, shall be punished with imprisonment which
Person having sexual intercourse with wife or another man, without consent/connivance
of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to rape, is guilty of offence of adultery, and
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 5 years or fine or both but wife shall
not be punishable as an abettor. (S. 497).
Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband

Whoever, being husband/relative of husband of woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and fine. (S. 498A).
Defamation
Whoever by words spoken/intended to be said/by signs/by visible representations
makes/publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm/knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of such person, is said to defame that
person. (S. 499).
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may
extend to 2 years or with fine or both. (S. 500).
Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance
Whoever threatens with injury to any person, reputation or property, or to person or
reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do/ to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled
to do, as the means of avoiding execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. (S. 503).
Person committing criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment which may
extend to 2 years or with fine or both. (S. 506).
Whoever intending to insult modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any
sound/gesture/exhibits any object, intending that such word/sound shall be heard/seen by such
woman or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman shall be punished with simple imprisonment
which may extend to 1 year or fine or both. (S. 509).
Attempt to Commit Offences

Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this code with life imprisonment,
or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards
commission of offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this code for punishment of
such attempt be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for offence, for a term
which may extend to one half of imprisonment for life, or as case may be, one half of longest
term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with such fine as is provided for offence or
both. (S. 511).
14.8 Summary
While drawing up a penal programme for the convention of crime and the treatment of
offenders, it must be borne in mind that human nature is complex and it is not possible to
comprehend it fully. This is the reason why all human being do not respond in the same manner
in a given situation. This basic realization has led to the innovation of a number of treatment
methods for offenders. The prisons are no longer regarded as custodial institutions as they have
acquired a new dimension as treatment and training centres for those who violate law. The
emphasis has thus shifted from custody to training as re-education of offenders and from mere
isolation to rehabilitation in the community. It has been realized that protection of society can be
better ensured if the offender is corrected and reformed through individualized treatment.
An ideal penal policy should resort to reformation in case of juveniles or first offenders
and deterrence to recidivists and hardened criminals. It is for this reason that modern penologists
lay greater emphasis on institutional methods of treating the offender rather than the traditional
methods of punishment which have now become obsolete and out dated. The need of the day is
for a rehabilitation programme for all inmates with a substantial diminution in the use of
imprisonment and incarceration.

Malik,K.P (2015)Penology, Victimology & Correctional Administration ,Allahabad Law
Agency.
Paran jape, N. V.(1996) Criminology and Penology .Central Law Publications.
Sharma, R. K(1988) Criminology and Penology Atlantic Publishers & Dist.
14.10 Model Questions:

1. Critically evaluate various modes of punishments.
2. Discuss the meaning and classification of crimes.

3. Discuss the classification of offenses under Indian penal code.
Lesson 15
Types of Punishment
Structure
15.0Objectives
15.1Introduction
15.2 various forms of Punishment

15.3Capital punishment
15.4Transportation
15.5 Imprisonment and Fine
15.6Forfeiture of Property
15.7Whipping
15.8Summary
15.9Further Readings
15.0 Objective:
After going through this lesson, you will be able to know
 Meaning and definition of punishment

 Different types of punishment
15.1 Introduction:
According to Emile Durkheim, punishment is above all a moral process, functioning to preserve
the shared values and normative conventions on which social life is based. It is an institution that
draws its motivating energies and support from the moral sentiments of the community; its forms
symbolize and enact moral judgments; and its most important effect is to reaffirm and strengthen
the moral order on which it is based. It is thus a part of the complex moral circuitry that creates
and sustains social solidarity-a basic social institution with important moral functions, not just a
regulatory mechanism for the control of crime.
Flew (1954) argues that punishment, in the sense of a sanction imposed for a criminal offense,
consists of five elements:
1. It must involve an unpleasantness to the victim.
2. It must be for an offense, actual or supposed.
3. It must be of an offender, actual or supposed.
4. It must be the work of personal agencies; in other words, it must not be the natural
consequence of an action.
5. It must be imposed by an authority or an institution against whose rules the offense has been
committed. If this is not the case, then the act is not one of punishment but is simply a hostile act.
Similarly, direct action by a person who has no special authority is not properly called
punishment, and is more likely to be revenge or an act of hostility.
According to Hart, (1968) there are five elements in the concept of Punishment:
(i) It must involve pain or other consequence normally considered unpleasant.
(ii) It must be for an offence against legal rules.
(iii) It must be of an actual or supposed offender for his/her offence.
(iv)It must be intentionally administered by human beings other than the offender.
(v) It must be imposed and administered by an authority constituted by a legal system against
which the offense is committed.
In addition to these five elements, Benn and Peters (1959) add that the unpleasantness should be
an essential part of what is intended.
Feinberg (1970) does not, indeed, present an explicit definition of punishment, but it seems to be
a fair interpretation of his much cited paper," The Expressive Function of Punishment", to take
him to be offering an amended version of Hart's definition. Feinberg seems, that is, to agree that
both "penalties" and punishment have the five properties mentioned by Hart, but he seems to
hold that punishment properly so-called has a sixth feature. This sixth feature is the expression of
society's, or at least of the punishing authority’s, ‘condemnation’ of the act of the accused. The
condemnatory feature Feinberg divides into two aspects, emotive and cognitive. The cognitive
component he captures by saying that "punishment expresses the judgment (as distinct from any
emotion)of the community that what the criminal did was wrong". 'The emotive component he
speaks of variously as "resentment", "indignation", even "hatred" and "contempt". For Feinberg
the specific difference between a parking ticket on the one hand and, say, a spell in jail for
drunken driving on the other is the component of condemnation (intellectual and emotive) that
occurs in the latter. According to Garland(1990) punishment is “the legal process whereby
violators of criminal law are condemned and sanctioned in accordance with specified legal
categories and procedures”.
15.2 Various forms of punishments
Punishment is the universal response to crime and deviance in all societies. As such, it takes
various forms. Various forms of punishments have been evolved and applied in different
societies through the ages. Tortures, sadistic forms of executing death sentences and all sorts of
cruelties in prisons were some of the distinguishing features of the penal philosophy all over the
world till relatively recent times. The punishments provided in many parts of the world,
including India, are death, imprisonment for life, rigorous and simple imprisonment, forfeiture of
property and fine.
Let us discuss these one by one.
15.3 Capital Punishment
The term 'capital punishment' is derived from the Latin caput, meaning 'head'. It originally
referred to death by decapitation, but now applies generally to state sanctioned executions. Some
Middle East countries still practice decapitation for certain offences, but more common forms of
the death penalty include electrocution, gas, firing squad, lethal injection and hanging.
Capital punishment means a sentence of death. It is the severest i.e. an extreme point of sentence.
The punishment is extreme because it extinguishes the very existence of human life.
Capital punishment is a permissible and rational sanction of the criminal process in modern
society. For thousands of years, capital punishment has been a dominated penalty and was in
practice as an effective measure to combat crime and for centuries its legitimacy was not
questioned. The ancient kings believed that if the offenders were leniently let off, crimes were
bound to multiply. It was thought that the best way of protecting society from dangerous
criminals was to sentence them to death. Its acceptance, in ancient societies, seems to have
depended on three principles: Firstly, insignificant value attached to human life, or at least to the
life of any particular individual. Secondly, death of the criminal was considered to be just and
fair because for deviation he must pay. Thirdly, the death penalty was to find natural support by
the arrival or gradual establishment of an all powerful state. It has come under serious attack in
recent years. Legal, moral, and practical arguments have been advanced against it. Some argue
that capital punishment is an unnecessary form of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
our constitution. Others claim that capital punishment serves the primary purpose of deterring
crime and punishing society’s most violent offenders.
In the past three decades, great strides have been made towards a world free from executions. In
1980, only 25 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. That figure now stands at
91, with a further 11 countries having abolished the death penalty for 'ordinary' crimes. 33
countries are considered to be 'abolitionist in practice' in that they retain the death penalty for
ordinary crimes such as murder but have not executed anyone during the last 10 years and are
believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, meaning that a
total of 135 of the world's nations have turned their back on capital punishment in law or
practice.
The Indian judiciary has ruled that the death penalty for murder must be restricted to the "rarest
of rare" cases, but this instruction has been contradicted by the legislature increasing the number
of offences punishable by death. The death penalty is mandatory under two of the relevant laws,
including for drug-related offences. In recent years the death penalty has been imposed under
new anti-terrorism legislation for people convicted of terrorist activities. Some people have been
pushing for it to be used against rape. Capital punishment, Death Penalty, or execution is the
infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that
can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences.
The Supreme Court has continued to give judgments showing its preference to life
imprisonment in all cases except those which do not have extenuating circumstances at all. A
triple murder offender who killed his wife and two daughters supposedly under some kind of
‘mental imbalance’ as a result of dog bite got his death sentence commuted by the Supreme
Court.
The majority judgments were delivered by Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Desai, concurring
with him. All the cases were upheld and death sentences commuted to life imprisonment. The
salient points of the majority opinion were as given below:
1. Special reasons’ necessary for imposing death penalty must relate not to the crime as such
but to the criminal and in spite of the crime being shocking in a particular instance the
criminal may not deserve the death sentence.
2. The correct approach is to read into Section 302, IPC and Section 354, CrPC the human
rights and human trends in the constitution. If the murderous operation of a diehard criminal
jeopardizes social security in a persistent, planned and perilous fashion, then his enjoyment
of fundamental rights may be rightly annihilated. So, one test for imposition of death
sentence is to find out whether the murderer offers such a traumatic threat to the survival of
social order.
3. In the case of a murder if the public prosecutor informs the court at the stage of sentence
gearing under Section 235(2) of the CrPC that the State as prosecutor is of the opinion that
the case is not one where extreme penalty is called for and if the sessions judge agrees with
the submission, the matter should end there. If on the other hand the public prosecutor states
that the case calls for the extreme penalty prescribed by law, the court would be well
advised to call upon the public prosecutor to sate and establish, if necessary by leading
evidence, facts for seeking the extreme penalty of death sentence.
One of the popular cases Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab, the appellant was convicted
for the murder of his wife and he underwent life imprisonment. On being released from jail he
came to stay with his cousin Hukum Singh. This was objected to by Hukum Singh’s wife and
son Desa Singh and the appellant, therefore, developed a grievance against the family. While
Hukum Singh and his wife were away in another town the appellant taking advantage o the
situation killed Desa Singh and his two sisters and grievously injured a third one with kulhari
(axe) in an unusually brutal manner. He was awarded death sentence. The high court while
confirming death sentence, observed, “the manner in which the appellant perpetrated these
crimes by killing these persons in their sleep is heinous. Under these circumstances the case of
appellant for reduction of the sentence cannot be considered and in our view the sentence
awarded by the learned trial judge was the only appropriate sentence”.
Court provided some guidelines regarding the choice to be made between death sentence
and life imprisonment:
1. If the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme
brutality; or
2. If the murder involves exceptional depravity; or
3. If the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member
of any police force or of any public servant and was committed-
a) while such member or public servant was on duty; or
b) In consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member or public

servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant whether
at the time of murder he was such member or public servant, as the case may be, or
had ceased to be such member or public servant; or
4. If the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under
Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The court gave examples of the circumstances which ought to be given due
consideration in the determination of a sentence:
a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or
emotional disturbance.
b) If the accused is too young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death.

c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as
would constitute a continuing threat to society.
d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The state shall
by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy conditions (3) and (4) above.
e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was
morally justified in committing the offence.
f) That the accused acted under duress or domination of another person.
g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that
the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
Of all the forms of punishments, capital punishment is perhaps the most debated subject
among the modern penologists. There are arguments for and against the utility of this mode of
sentence. The retention of the 'Death Penalty' is necessary in view of the deteriorating law and
order situation in the country. Those who advocate abolition of death penalty however suggest
that it shall be a fitting tribute to the memory of late Mahatma Gandhi if death penalty is
abolished. But the receptionists argued that the cause of non violence is equally served if the
causes of explicit violence regardless of ideals involved are visited with implicit violence of
capital punishment and stressed on its application in such a manner that its harshness is mitigated
but efficiency retained. As a rule of punishment, by and large, it depends on the degree of
culpability of criminal act and the danger posed by it to society and also the depravity of the
offender. Looking into the various judgments and the different situations of various offences, the
mid way approach seems to be most appropriate particularly in the context of modern Indian
society where the machinery of police as well as the magistracy is hardly adequate to tackle the
problem of crime and criminals effectively. The object of punishment should be achieved by
extending necessary safeguards to the life of individual but at the same time by limiting their
liberty so as to eliminate crime. Keeping with the prevailing socio-cultural and economic
conditions and the deteriorating law and order situation in the country, Capital Punishment is the
need of the day.
Q1: Give two conditions where death penalty is reduced to life imprisonment.
Ans:_____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q2: What is Capital Punishment?
Ans:_____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
15.4 Transportation: This punishment is one of the most ancient ones. The object is to
eliminate criminals from society by sending them at far off places and sometimes even rebels,
revolutionaries and reformers were also taken care of by this process. In India, transportation
meant the dispatch of more dangerous criminals to ‘kala paani’ i.e. to Andaman and Nicobar
Island. The draftsmen of the Indian Penal Code, while proposing this punishment took note of
the extraordinary fear among Indians of the sea, particularly those living far away from it and felt
that the punishment caused more terror in the Indian minds than what was actually warranted by
the actual punishment.
15.5 Imprisonment and Fines are the two common modes of punishment. If fine or
imprisonment is the only punishment provided for a particular offence, the only question for the
court is to decide is to fix the tariff within permissible limits having regard to the circumstances
of the case. If, however, the court has to make a choice out of the two, it has to apply its mind in
choosing the appropriate mode of punishment before fixing the tariff. Where imprisonment is the
better alternative, it should not be as if a person can avoid imprisonment by paying a heavy fine
because he can afford to do so.
Imprisonment: The problem faced in fixing the period of imprisonment is made more complex
by the fact that both sort term as well as long term imprisonment has their inherent
disadvantages. Short term imprisonments are regarded not only as being useless but also
dangerous. They are useless in the sense that no institutional training or treatment is possible in
short terms like one month or six months and they are dangerous because jails provide ideal
surroundings to novices and the minor offender for further training in a criminal career.
The consequences of imprisonment: Examples of possible unintended effects of imprisonment

are as follows:
1. impairment of physical health
2. impairment of mental health
3. providing a criminal education
4. damaging ties with the outside world

5. reducing employment prospects
Fines: Fines as an additional or alternative form of punishment have been increasingly favored
by the law as well as judicial authorities. They are singularly more appropriate in offences
relating to traffic, employment of persons unauthorized by law and violation of laws regarding
manufacture and distribution of goods. They are very frequently imposed in relation to property
crimes like embezzlement, fraud, theft, violations of lottery and gambling laws and minor
offences like loitering and disorderly conduct.
Fine is indeed forfeiture of a sum of money by way of penalty. For certain offences in the Indian
Penal Code, fine is the sole punishment prescribed. The fine is attractive to the convict because it
is flexible and it seems to combine elements of both reparation and deterrence. In terms of
reconviction rate it compares well with other sentences and is also economical even when the
costs of enforcement and imprisonment for default are taken into account. It is this general
satisfaction with the fine which is its greatest strength.
Fine as an alternative to short term imprisonment is a treatment measure. A fine is a pecuniary

penalty imposed upon a person convicted of a crime. The imposition of financial penalty in the
form of a fine or forfeiture of property has been a common method of punishment since a long
time in western as well as eastern civilization.
The real problem involved in imposition of financial penalties is the quantum, of fine or
costs and enforcement of its payment. There is not much difference regarding the matter of
fixation of the quantum of fines or the length of imprisonments to the extent that greater tariff is
provided for relatively graver offences. What, however, distinguishes fines from the length of
imprisonment in the sentencing process is the additional dimension of the paying capacity of the
offender which cannot be ignored. It is of course well established that the quantum of fine should
not be such that it is wholly impossible for the offender to pay it without ruining himself and
inflicting untold hardship on his family. This view has been reiterated by a number of High
Courts in India on various occasions.
The fine is most easily and thoroughly remissible of any of the penalties. Capital
punishment, whipping or imprisonment once administered cannot be remitted effectively, but a
fine that has been paid can be refunded. It is the most economical penalty as it costs the state
practically nothing. It does not carry with it the stigma and disgrace that imprisonment does and
therefore, does not hamper readjustment of the offender. This method does not expose the
individual to the corrupting influence of hardened criminals. Since it puts a check on the pocket
of the offender, it also puts a check on the routine of his life. When he does not possess enough
money at his disposal he realizes his folly and feels that he should keep himself away from crime
.It does not carry with it the stigma and disgrace that imprisonment does and therefore, does not
hamper readjustment of the offender. This method does not expose the individual to the
corrupting influence of hardened criminals. Since it puts a check on the pocket of the offender, it
also puts a check on the routine of his life. When he does not possess enough money at his
disposal he realizes his folly and feels that he should keep himself away from crime.
Fine does not break the relationship of an offender with his family. Nor does it disrupt the
occupational career of the convict like that of prison sentence.
This positive effect of crime may act as an incentive to the convict to pursue his occupational
career and this may help him to maintain and strengthen his relationship with the legitimate ways
of life.
1: Give two consequences of imprisonment.
Ans:_____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. Name the crimes related to property, where the fine is imposed.
Ans:__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
15.6 Forfeiture of Property: Forfeiture of property which is the subject matter of the offence is
a possible mode of punishment under the Indian penal code in certain circumstances. But
forfeiture of the whole of the property is not possible according to the present law. Such a
punishment was possible under the original penal code but the provisions were repeated in 1921.
There are three cases in which specific property of the offender is liable to forfeiture. This type
of punishment is imposed in cases of smuggling, drug peddling, holding black money, tools used
for offences, and also on the offenders under Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.Most of these convicts make money through crime. . With
that money their family could lead luxurious life and they could also take benefit of that by
getting extra benefits in the prison. They could even get the facility of good lawyers and thereby
reduce their period of imprisonment.
It is imperative to make the offenders forfeit the properties they accumulated through dishonest
means. Section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers the court to make such
order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person
claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or document produced before it or in its custody, or
regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which has been used for the
commission of any offence.
This is mainly to prevent persons from committing crime with a view to get easy money. If it is
confiscated it will show to the offenders as well as other likeminded persons that crime does not
pay. The only thing they get out of crime is punishment and bad name.
15.7 Whipping: Of all the corporal punishments, flogging or whipping was one of the most
common methods of punishing crimes. In India, this mode of punishment was recognized under
the Whipping Act, 1864, which was repealed and replaced by similar act in 1909 and finally
abolished in 1955. the English penal law abolished whipping even earlier. The instruments and
methods of flogging, however, differed from country to country. Some of them used straps and
whips with a single lash while others used short pieces of rubber-hose as they left behind traces
of flogging. Penological researchers have shown whipping as a method of punishment has hardly
proved effective. Its futility is evinced by the fact that most of the hardened criminals who were
subjected to whipping repeated their crime. There is a general belief that whipping may serve
some useful purpose in case of minor offences such as eve- teasing, drunkenness, vagrancy,
shop-lifting, etc. but it does not seem to have the desired effect on offenders charged with major
crimes.
1. Whipping was recognized under which Act?
Ans:_____________________________________________________________
2. ‘kaala paani’ is an example of which punishment?

Ans:_____________________________________________________________
15.8 Summary
Punishment is a process by which the state inflicts some pain to the persons or property of person
who is found guilty of Crime. In other words punishment is sanction imposed on an accused for
the infringement of the established rules. The object of Punishment is to protect society from
mischievous and undesirable elements by deterring potential offenders, by preventing the actual
offenders from committing further offences and by reforming and turning them into law abiding
citizens. In this lesson different types of punishments such as capital punishment, imprisonment,
fine, forfeiture of property, whipping etc have been discussed.
Ahuja Ram .(2010). Criminology. Rawat Publications,Jaipur.
Paranjape N.V (2006). Criminology and Penology. Central Law Publications,New Delhi.
Reid, Suetitus(1976), Crime and Criminology. Illinois: Deyden Press.
Sutherland.E.H &D.R.Cressy(2011) Principles of Criminology. Surjeet Publications,Bombay.
15.10Model Questions:
Q1: Discuss different types of punishment.
Q2: Write a note on Capital Punishment.

Lesson 16
Correctional system
Structure
16.0 Objectives
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Process of criminal justice
16.3 Community Corrections
16.4 Prison
16.4.1 Brief History of Prisons in General
16.4.2 Prisons in India
16.4.3 Prisons in India – a brief summary
16.4.4 Prison distribution in India
16.4.5 Major Problems of Prisons in India
16.5 Summary
16.0 Objectives
After reading this lesson you will be able to

 know about correctional system
 understand meaning of community based corrections
 explain Prison based corrections with special reference to Indian Prisons
16.1 Introduction
In criminal justice system, correction, corrections, and correctional, are umbrella

terms describing a variety of functions typically carried out by government agencies, and
involving the punishment, treatment, and supervision of persons who have
been convicted of crimes.
These functions commonly include imprisonment, parole and probation. A typical correctional
institution is a prison. A correctional system, also known as a penal system, thus refers to a
network of agencies that administer a jurisdiction's prisons and community-based programs like
parole and probation boards this system is part of the larger criminal justice system, which
additionally includes police, prosecution and courts.
Corrections are generally considered the initial stage in the criminal justice process. Some
aspects of corrections, however, come into play early in the process. Criminal justice agencies,
taken as a whole, are said to compose the criminal justice system.
The components of the criminal justice system are (1) police, (2) courts, and (3) corrections.
Each component, because it contains a variety of organizations and agencies, can be termed a
subsystem. The subsystem of corrections, for example, includes prisons, agencies of probation
and parole, jails, and a variety of alternative programs.
16.2 Process of criminal justice

The process of criminal justice involves the activities of the agencies that make up the criminal
justice system. The process of criminal justice begins when a crime is discovered or reported.
The criminal justice system does not respond to all crime because most crimes are not discovered
or reported to the police .Law enforcement agencies learn about crimes from the reports of
citizens, through discovery by a police officer in the field, or through investigative and
intelligence work. Once a law enforcement agency knows of a crime, the agency must identify
and arrest a suspect before the case can proceed. Sometimes a suspect is found at the scene; other
times, however, identifying a suspect requires an extensive investigation. Often no one is
identified or apprehended—the crime goes unsolved. If an offender is arrested, booked, and
jailed to await an initial court appearance, the intake, custody, confinement, and supervision
aspects of corrections first come into play at this stage of the criminal justice process. After
conviction and sentencing, most offenders enter the correctional subsystem.
We can distinguish between institutional corrections and non-institutional corrections. A
report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) says that institutional corrections “involves the
confinement and rehabilitation of adults and juveniles convicted of offenses against the law and
the confinement of persons suspected of a crime awaiting trial and adjudication.”
BJS goes on to say that “correctional institutions are prisons, reformatories, jails, houses of
correction, penitentiaries, correctional farms, workhouses, reception centers, diagnostic centers,
industrial schools, training schools, detention centers, and a variety of other types of institutions
for the confinement and correction of convicted adults or juveniles who are adjudicated
delinquent or in need of supervision. [The term] also includes facilities for the detention of adults
and juveniles accused of a crime and awaiting trial or hearing.” According to BJS, non-
institutional corrections, which is sometimes called community corrections, includes “pardon,
probation, and parole activities, correctional administration not directly connectable to
institutions, and miscellaneous [activities] not directly related to institutional care.”
The fundamental purpose of corrections “is to enhance social order and public safety.” In any
society, social order and public safety depend on effective social control. Some forms of social
control take the form of customs, norms, and what sociologists refer to as mores. Mores are
behavioral standards that embody a group’s values. Violation of these standards is a serious
wrong. They generally forbid such activities as murder, rape, and robbery. Folkways, in
contrast, are time-honored ways of doing things. Although folkways carry the force of tradition,
their violation is unlikely to threaten the survival of the group.
Societal expectations, whatever form they take, are sometimes enacted into law. The criminal
law, also called penal law, is the body of rules and regulations that deal with public offenses or
wrongs committed against the state or society, and specify punishments for those offenses.
Social control, social order, and public safety are the ultimate goals of criminal law. The
correctional subsystem is crucial in enforcing the dictates of the law because the rewards and
punishments it carries out play a significant role in society’s control of its members.
In this chapter we will be dealing with community based and prison based corrections.

Simply defined, “community corrections” are non-prison sanctions that are imposed on
convicted adults or adjudicated juveniles either by a court instead of a prison sentence or by a
parole board following release from prison. Community corrections offer viable alternatives to
incarceration for offenders at various stages of the criminal justice process. The alternatives
which may be available to offenders include: bail supervision programs, alternative measures
programs, restitution programs, fine options programs, community service order, probation,
intensive supervision probation, conditional sentence of imprisonment, attendance centre
programs, electronic monitoring, community-based centres, temporary absence programs and
parole.
There are several issues related to community corrections, including cost-savings, reduction of
prison populations, effectiveness, humanitarianism, and public opinion. The cost of community
corrections is an issue continually debated. Most community correctional programs emphasize
that the use of community alternatives is not as costly as traditional incarceration, while
adversaries argue that community programs end up costing more than traditional incarceration.
While community corrections programs are apparently less costly than incarceration, some
caution against misusing cost comparisons in lobbying for community corrections alternatives.
Approximately 90% of the cost of running an existing prison is relatively fixed (eg.,
administrative costs); therefore, a small reduction in prison counts will not produce tremendous
cost savings.
Community sanctions are often referred to as alternatives to prison. Community sanctions are
often referred to as alternatives to incarceration. Doob (1990,) asserts that there are three basic
assumptions underlying the introduction of alternatives to imprisonment:
1) In the absence of a wide range of alternatives, judges are reluctantly imprisoning offenders.
2) Those offenders who are presently being given community sanctions are receiving sentences
that involve, from the judges' perspective, sufficient control, punishment, or rehabilitative
opportunities.
3) Judges will automatically see the new community sanction as appropriate for a wide range of
offenders who, previously, were predominantly receiving sentences of imprisonment.
However, alternatives to incarceration are often introduced in the absence of mechanisms to
ensure that they are actually used as alternatives (Doob, 1990).
The often minimal impact of community sanctions on institutional populations has been
demonstrated in England, following the passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 which
introduced the suspended sentence as a community alternative to incarceration. The suspended
sentence allowed the court to suspend a prison sentence of up to two years for a period between
one and two years. The offender was released into the community and the prison sentence could
be activated if the offender was convicted of an offence subject to a term of imprisonment during
the suspension period. In the years following the introduction of the suspended sentence, it was
estimated that 50% to 60% of offenders given a suspended sentence would not have received a
prison sentence anyway (Gemmell, 1990). In addition, the suspended sentence was suspected to
be increasing rather than decreasing the prison population due to activations of suspended prison
sentences. According to Sparks (1971):
This failure of legislative and appellate control arose in part because the sentencing judges
treated suspended sentences, not as an alternative to imprisonment but rather as a sanction in its
own right - a rung in the penalty ladder lying just below the ultimate sanction of imprisonment.
Another potential barrier to the use of alternatives to imprisonment is judicial reluctance to
impose community sanctions. For example, in Kenya, despite a wide variety of sentencing
options available, the courts overwhelmingly impose terms of imprisonment (Vyas, 1995).
Judges are often reluctant to impose community corrections alternatives due to negative
community sentiment toward community corrections. The public tends to disregard community
corrections as real sentences; too much of the public, the very word "sentence" implies
incarceration.
Finally, alternatives to imprisonment may have minimal impact on the prison population if
community corrections failures are automatically given prison terms. Community corrections
failures are those offenders who are unsuccessful under community supervision. Failure may
result from breaking a condition of community supervision, such as breaking curfew or failing to
report to correctional authorities as required. Another example of failure is committing a new
offence while under community supervision. In the United States, community supervision
failures represent the fastest growing segment of the prison population (Taxman & Byrne, 1994).
In order to convince the public of the seriousness of community sanctions, many jurisdictions
have made incarceration the consequence for community supervision failures.
However, community corrections programs have often failed to reduce prison populations. One
reason for this is that alternatives to incarceration are often introduced in the absence of
mechanisms to ensure that they are actually used as alternatives. Another potential barrier to the
use of alternatives to imprisonment is judicial reluctance to impose community sanctions.
Finally, alternatives to imprisonment may have minimal impact on the prison population if
community corrections failures are automatically given prison terms.
Another aspect of community corrections increasingly examined is whether such programs
"widen the net" of social control. Widening the net of social control refers to a situation in which
individuals who previously would have been managed informally are now dealt with by the
justice system simply because, with the existence of and expansion of community programs,
there is a "suitable" program now available to handle them. It is increasingly apparent that
commitment to community-based programs usually entails longer periods under supervision than
does commitment to traditional prisons and training schools, leading to an increase in the total
number of people under correctional supervision at any given time.
Community corrections alternatives may not be used to divert offenders from prison, in which
case they can actually increase correctional costs because jail populations remain constant and
there are the additional costs of the community programs.
Community corrections programs are said to be an obvious improvement over traditional
corrections programs for humanitarian reasons. Community corrections are considered
humanitarian in that they provide less serious offenders with alternatives that let them continue
with various aspects of their lives. Community corrections programs are also considered to be
humanitarian because they avoid many of the negative effects of incarceration, including
stigmatization, damage to physical and/or mental health and constant exposure to criminal peers.
Community corrections programs also present opportunities to be more responsive to the needs
of offenders, victims and communities.
At present, community-based alternatives do not enjoy wide acceptance among the general
public and this opposition manifests itself in various ways. For example, the public has never
fully accepted community corrections programs such as probation, fines, day and full parole,
temporary absences and intermittent prison sentences. Most communities are hostile to the idea
of having halfway houses or residential centres for law violators located in their midst for fear
that crime will increase and adjacent property values will drop, a phenomenon known as the
NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard syndrome. Several factors likely contribute to the current
conservative and punitive mood of the public; however, the prime contributing factor to public
opinion seems to be a lack of knowledge of the criminal justice system. Two studies have shown
that when focus group participants are asked to sentence hypothetical offenders, they
overwhelmingly choose incarceration (Doble & Klein, 1989, English, Crouch & Pullen, 1989,
both cited in Roberts, 1992). However, when subjects are given information about alternative
dispositions, the subjects “sentence” only a small percentage of the offenders to incarceration.
These findings suggest that the public tends to equate imprisonment with sentencing due to a
lack of information about community alternatives to imprisonment.
Advocates of community corrections argue that community programs are more effective than
incarceration. Effectiveness can be measured in terms of reducing recidivism, avoiding exposure
to undesirable effects and promoting the successful re-integration of offenders into the
community. Studies have shown that incarceration is not more effective than community
corrections in preventing re-offending (Vyas, 1995) and treatment programs have been shown to
be more effective when delivered in a community setting (Gendreau & Andrews, 1990).
Furthermore, community corrections programs spare offenders many of the negative effects of
incarceration.
Community corrections programs also facilitate many of the factors associated with an offender's
successful re-integration into the community. For offenders being released from incarceration
into a community residential facility or community correctional centre, the benefits of
community corrections are obvious. Not only is the offender provided with the opportunity to
gradually re-integrate into society, he or she is also able to pursue employment and educational
opportunities. Further, family ties are better maintained when an offender is residing at a
community-based facility rather than a prison.
Community correction programs were developed in response to a recognition that traditional

incarceration was not working. The new approaches are a step in the progression toward a more
humane and effective correctional system. However, community corrections programs are not
without their problems. For instance, community corrections have often served as a supplement
rather than a supplant to traditional incarceration. In such cases, net widening effects result in no
reduction in the prison population or correctional costs. Despite such problems, there are
numerous examples of community corrections initiatives which have been highly successful.
Further research is needed into the advantages of new alternatives in community corrections, as,
for example, electronic monitoring and attendance centres. With a better educated public, more
informed government and an urgent need for changes to the system, community corrections will
undoubtedly become an even more significant aspect of the criminal justice system.
What is Community based corrections?
16.4 Prison - A generic term comprising the places maintained by public authority for the
detention of those confined under the legal process, whether the imprisonment is for the purpose
of insuring the production of the prisoner to answer in future legal proceedings, or whether it is
for the purpose of punishment for an offense of which the person has been duly convicted and
for which he has been duly sentenced.
16.4.1 Brief History of Prisons in General

The prison, viewed as an institution for detaining men against their will, originated in the most
remote antiquity. It is quite impossible to fix the exact date of the general beginning of
imprisonment for crime. Records, however, show that in the early years, prisons were known to
be a place where offenders were tortured and punished. The place was so dirty and uninhabitable
as to augment the sufferings of the prisoners.
The age of Justinian brought about a new legal principle. Such principle professed that "prisons
ought to be used for detention only, but not for punishment. "( Korn & Lloyd, Criminology And
Penology ,1964).
During the 16th century a different kind of misfits, the beggars and the vagabonds flourished in
England. King Henry VIII thought it wise to pass severe laws to protect the "upright men" from
such misfits. As a result two institutions developed to cope up with the problem. These were the
jails or prisons chiefly used for the detention of those accused of crime pending their trials. The
other were workhouses which were not penal institutions but were utilized solely to repress
vagrant and paupers. The combination of these two institutions during the colonial period (18th
Century) produced the modern prisons. This system was characterized by the establishment of
reformation with cellular confinement and the use of hard labor as disciplinary and reformative
measures.
Criminal Science also evolved during this period. One of the first breakthroughs in laying its
foundation was Beccaria's book, of Crimes and Punishment. Beccaria believed that the only
justification of legal confinement was the protection of society by prevention of crime and that
the principle of uniform maximum severity was wrong and ineffective. Punishment must be
proportionate to the crime and established by law. The view of Beccaria was adopted and
implemented by the prison reformers that followed. One of them was John Harvard, reputed to
be the greatest English prison reformer. He believed that prisons should be sanitary and secure,
have separate cells and prisoners should have useful work in proper workshops with regular
moral and religious instruction.
The Quakers in 1776 also advocated that prisoners could be reformed through labor and
meditation. No significant radical change in the prison system happened in Europe in the early
years of the 20th century. However, after World War I, the punitive treatment of prisoners was
shown to make men and women worse.
Thus, Europe moved toward the "individualization of punishment" principle. Under this system,
rehabilitation was a primary concern and the humiliating features of the prison system removed.
Employment of technical men like sociologists and psychiatrists were also emphasized and later
considered as an indispensable part of the prison staff.
Thus, saw the movement of prison justification from punitive to rehabilitative, from the
inhumane treatment of prisoners to the more humane one that considered the basic rights of
prisoners. This is not evenly practiced by the different countries even now, as some of these
principles continue to be violated.
16.4.2 Prisons in India:

Numerous scholars have contributed to the revelation of crime and punishment in ancient India.
P.V. Kane in “History of Dharmashastras” gives detailed information about various crimes,
punishments, judicial administration, evolution of ancient Indian law and allied topics.
In very ancient period communities used to administer the justice system at the family level. The
family was based on the patriarchal system. The father used to dominate the family and therefore
he was adjudged as the ruler of his family. His authority was final and after his death, power was
transmitted to the eldest son. With the passage of time, the administering justice was based on
the hierarchal basis viz. village (gram); community (vis); people (jana) and country (rashtra).
The rashtra was normally ruled by the king (Rajan). Kingship was normally hereditary. This
system was known as Monarchy. The main duties of monarchical system were to protect the life
and property of people, maintain peace, defend the rashtra against external aggression,
administer the justice, and punish the guilty. The king was helped by purohit (priest) and council
of ministers. The jurisprudence of Ancient India, which was essentially Hindu-ruled, was shaped
by the concept of `Dharma', or rules of right conduct as outlined in the various manuals
explaining the Vedic scriptures such as `Puranas' and `Smritis'. The King had no independent
authority but derived his powers from `Dharma' which he was expected to uphold. The
distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal offence was clear. While civil wrongs related
mainly to disputes arising over wealth, the concept of pataka or sin was the standard against
which crime was to be defined. (Basham, 1967; Jois, Vol. I, 1990). Mainly murder, theft and
burglary were considered as crimes. The punishment of crime differed depending upon the race,
class or community to which the offender belonged to.
Manu advocated the theory of deterrence as the purpose of punishment and the infliction of
punishment should be according to the principles of natural justice. The king having fully
considered the time and place of the offence, and the strength and the knowledge of the offender,
should justly inflict punishment on the offenders. The concept of the consideration of the offence
and offender for the purpose of punishment falls in line with the modern principles of justice.
Manu felt that only punishment can control all the human beings on the earth and gave utmost
importance to punishment.
Manu identified ten places on the body in which punishment may be inflicted. The sexual organ,
the belly, the tongue, the two hands, and fifthly the two feet, the eye, the nose, the two ears,
likewise the (whole) body are the ten places in a body fit for punishment (Buhler 1984). From
this view, we also come to know that Manu supported retributive justice. Manu was against
unjust punishment. Manu provided stages of punishment for an erring person if he continues to
do the crime, first by gentle admonition, afterwards by harsh reproof, thirdly by a fine, and later
by corporal chastisement. However, when the offender is not able to restrain such offence even
by corporal punishment, then the four modes co-jointly should be applied.
Punishment was thus four-fold viz., admonition, reproof, fine and corporal. It was awarded after
considering the offenders condition and the crime committed by him. Among the physical
punishments for any offence of a small nature, whipping on the back with a cord or bamboo stick
was prescribed. Mutilation of limbs appeared to be one of the most common practices.
Imprisonment was also prevalent during ancient period. Hiuen-Tsang observed that
imprisonment for the life was practiced. Yama suggested that instead of corporal punishment, a
Brahman criminal should always be kept in prison and the king should compel him to labor. The
ancient Dharmashastras do not show for what particular offences the prisoners were to be kept
confined. It was left to the king to decide who should be sent to jail and for what period.
Prisons were generally located in an underground dungeon or in an out of the way place and
were properly walled. Prisons were well protected by guards and jailors. Wooden handcuffs were
also known. The condition of the prisoners was far from satisfactory. They bore haggard looks
with long beards and their bodies looked dark due to dirt. Hiuen-Tsang records that prisoners
generally received harsh treatment. They were not allowed to shave and had hairy faces &
matted beards.
Kautilya prescribed that a jail should be constructed in the capital, provided with separate
accommodation for men & women kept apart and well guarded at the entrances. He further
provided that among the duties of the Nagarka (jail officer) was to let prisoners out of the jail on
the day of festival, of the birth, constellation of the king and on the full moon day (of every
month). Those persons who were young, very old, suffering from diseases and helpless or those
who were charitably disposed might pay the fines. Those who were not in a position to pay fines
were jailed. Prisoners were released from jail (as a favor) on the conquest of a fresh territory or
on the coronation of the crown prince or on the birth of a prince.
The Maurya Dynasty, which had extended to substantial parts of the Central and Eastern regions
during the 4th Century B.C., had a rigorous penal system which prescribed mutilation as well as
the death penalty for even trivial offences. During the rule of the Gupta Dynasty (4 th to 6th
Century A.D.), the judicial hierarchy was formed. The judiciary was comprised of the guild, the
folk-assembly or the council and the king himself. Judicial decisions conformed to legal texts,
social usage and the edict of the king, who was prohibited from violating the decisions. It is thus
observed that imprisonment as a mode of punishment was not a regular feature in ancient India
when compared with the modern prison system.
Mughal Period – India was subjected to a series of invasions by the Muslims beginning in the
8th Century A.D. and ending in the 15th century, when a mixed race of Persians, Turks and
Mongols set up the Mughal Empire. The principle forms of punishment during Mughal period
were capital punishment, mutilation, flogging, banishment, Tashir, fines, and imprisonment.
Although imprisonment was a very usual form of punishment in Mughal India, there were no
specific rules fixed for it. The chief feature of this punishment was that no period was fixed for
it. The Quazi i.e. the magistrate had a right to send anyone to prison for the offence or crime for
which the punishment could be awarded, and the accused had to show signs of repentance to
secure his freedom.
The accounts recorded by European travelers as well as the scattered cases in the chronicles
show that there were neither regular jails in the modern sense nor proper arrangements for
keeping criminals and political offenders in custody.
When the prisoners were taken to the prison, they were usually loaded with iron fetters on their
feet and shackles around their necks. For temporary confinement, there were police lock-ups in
the cities termed as Chabutra-e-kotwali. The office in charge of Chabutra-e-kotwali used to be
the Mushrif. The Chabutra-e-kotwali has resemblance with the modern police lock-ups where the
accused persons are kept, prior to being produced before the magistrates. Even though there were
no jails in the modern sense during Mughal period, the practice of releasing the prisoners on bail
from jail was in existence.
To summarize the main features of prison system as they prevailed in pre-British period, we find
that:
1. There were no prisons in the modern sense.
2. There is no description about the internal administration of prison.
3. There was no separation of prison service from the civil service.
4. There is no description about the types of prisoners sent to prison and the relation of
prisoners with the outside world.
5. Courts were not the feeding centers for prisons.
6. Imprisonment was not the normal feature of punishment and most of the punishment
were meted out outsides the prison.
7. Some forts were used for keeping certain types of prisoners. In such "Fort prisons"
there were no rules for the recruitment of the staff, or rules and regulations for the
treatment of prisoners.
Modern prison system The contemporary Prison administration in India is the legacy of British
rule. It is based on the notion that the best criminal code can be of little use to a community
unless there is good machinery for the infliction of punishments. In 1864, the Second
Commission of Inquiry into Jail Management and Discipline made similar recommendations as
the 1836 Committee. In addition, this Commission made some specific suggestions regarding
accommodation for prisoners, improvement in diet, clothing, bedding and medical care. In 1877,
a Conference of Experts met to inquire into prison administration. The conference proposed the
enactment of a prison law and a draft bill was prepared. In 1888, the Fourth Jail Commission was
appointed. On the basis of its recommendation, a consolidated prison bill was formulated.
Provisions regarding the jail offences and punishment were specially examined by a conference
of experts on Jail Management. In 1894, the draft bill became law with the assent of the
Governor General of India.
Prisons Act 1894
It is the Prisons Act, 1894, on the basis of which the present jail management and administration
operates in India. This Act has hardly undergone any substantial change. However, the process
of review of the prison problems in India continued even after this. In the report of the Indian Jail
Committee 1919-20, for the first time in the history of prisons, 'reformation and rehabilitation' of
offenders were identified as the objectives of the prison administrator. Several committees and
commissions appointed by both central and state governments after Independence have
emphasized humanization of the conditions in the prisons. The need for completely overhauling
and consolidating the laws relating to prison has been constantly highlighted. The Government of
India Act 1935, resulted in the transfer of the subject of jails from the centre list to the control of
provincial governments and hence further reduced the possibility of uniform implementation of a
prison policy at the national level. State governments thus have their own rules for the day to day
administration of prisons, upkeep and maintenance of prisoners, and prescribing procedures.
In 1951, the Government of India invited the United Nations expert on correctional work, Dr.
W.C. Reckless, to undertake a study on prison administration and to suggest policy reform. His
report titled 'Jail Administration in India' made a plea for transforming jails into reformation
centers. He also recommended the revision of outdated jail manuals. In 1952, the Eighth
Conference of the Inspector Generals of Prisons also supported the recommendations of Dr.
Reckless regarding prison reform. Accordingly, the Government of India appointed the All India
Jail Manual Committee in 1957 to prepare a model prison manual. The committee submitted its
report in 1960. The report made forceful pleas for formulating a uniform policy and latest
methods relating to jail administration, probation, after-care, juvenile and remand homes,
certified and reformatory school, borstals and protective homes, suppression of immoral traffic
etc. The report also suggested amendments in the Prison Act 1894 to provide a legal base for
correctional work.
The Model Prison Manual
The Committee prepared the Model Prison Manual (MPM) and presented it to the Government
of India in 1960 for implementation. The MPM 1960 is the guiding principle on the basis of
which the present Indian prison management is governed.
On the lines of the Model Prison Manual, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in
1972, appointed a working group on prisons. It brought out in its report the need for a national
policy on prisons. It also made an important recommendation with regard to the classification
and treatment of offenders and laid down principles.
The Mulla Committee
In 1980, the Government of India, set-up a Committee on Jail Reform, under the chairmanship of
Justice A. N. Mulla. The basic objective of the Committee was to review the laws, rules and
regulations keeping in view the overall objective of protecting society and rehabilitating
offenders. The Mulla Committee submitted its report in1983
The Krishna Iyer Committee
In 1987, the Government of India appointed the Justice Krishna Iyer Committee to undertake a
study on the situation of women prisoners in India. It has recommended induction of more
women in the police force in view of their special role in tackling women and child offenders.
Subsequent developments
Following a Supreme Court direction (1996) in Ramamurthy vs State of Karnataka to bring
about uniformity nationally of prison laws and prepare a draft model prison manual, a committee
was set up in the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D). The jail manual
drafted by the committee was accepted by the Central government and circulated to State
governments in late December 2003. How many have acted on it is anybody's guess. As in the
case of the recommendations of the National Police Commission (1977), which had sought the
creation of a State Security Commission and the promulgation of a new Police Act to replace the
1861 enactment, implementing jail reform recommendations rests with the States. The Home
Ministry can do precious little if there is no political will on the part of States to push through
both police and prison reforms.
In 1999, a draft Model Prisons Management Bill (The Prison Administration and Treatment of
Prisoners Bill- 1998) was circulated to replace the Prison Act 1894 by the Government of India
to the respective states but this bill is yet to be finalized. In 2000, the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, appointed a Committee for the Formulation of a Model Prison Manual
which would be a pragmatic prison manual, in order to improve the Indian prison management
and administration.
The All India Committee on Jail Reforms (1980-1983), the Supreme Court of India and the
Committee of Empowerment of Women (2001-2002) have all highlighted the need for a
comprehensive revision of the prison laws but the pace of any change has been disappointing
(Banerjea 2005). The Supreme Court of India has however expanded the horizons of prisoner‟s
rights jurisprudence through a series of judgments.
16.4.3 Prisons in India – a brief summary
According to the UN Global Report on Crime and Justice 1999, the rate of imprisonment in our
country is very low, i.e. 25 prisoners per one lakh of population, in comparison to Australia (981
prisoners), England (125 prisoners), USA (616 prisoners) and Russia (690 prisoners) per one
lakh population. A large chunk of prison population is dominated by first offenders (around
90%) The rate of offenders and recidivists in prison population of Indian jails is 9:l while in the
UK it is 12:1, which is quite revealing and alarming. Despite the relatively lower populations in
prison, the problems are numerous.
As of 2007, the prison population was 3,76,396, as against an official capacity of 277,304,
(representing an occupancy rate of 135.7%) distributed across 1276 establishments throughout
the country. The prison population has been steadily increasing during the last decade. A
majority of the prison population is male (nearly 96%) and approximately two-thirds are pre-trial
detainees (undertrials).
16.4.4 Prison distribution in India
Prison and its administration is a State subject as it is covered by item 4 under List II in Schedule
VII of the Constitution of India. Prison establishments in different States/UTs comprise of
several tiers of Jails.
The most common and standard Jail Institutions which are in existence in the States/UTs are
better known as Central Jails, District Jails and Sub Jails. The other types of jail establishments
are Women Jails, Borstal Schools, Open Jails and Special Jails.
Total number of jails in the States/UTs shows that Maharashtra has the highest number (210) of
jails among the States/UTs followed by Andhra Pradesh (141), Tamil Nadu (134), Madhya
Pradesh (116), Rajasthan (105) and Karnataka (98). Arunachal Pradesh does not have any jail of
its own. Its convicts and undertrial prisoners are kept in jails of Assam, therefore, prison statistics
in respect of Assam include prisoners of Arunachal Pradesh also.
16.4.5 Major Problems of Prisons in India; Overcrowding, prolonged detention of under-trial
prisoners, unsatisfactory living conditions, lack of treatment programmes and allegations of
indifferent and even inhuman approach of prison staff have repeatedly attracted the attention of
the critics over the years.
Overcrowding
Congestion in jails, particularly among under-trials has been a source of concern. The Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration National Jail Census of 1970 revealed that 52% of the
jail inmates were awaiting trial (Law Commission of India 1979). Obviously, if prison
overcrowding has to be brought down, the under-trial population has to be reduced drastically.
This, of course, cannot happen without the courts and the police working in tandem. The three
wings of the criminal justice system would have to act in harmony.
Corruption and extortion
Extortion by prison staff, and its less aggressive corollary, guard corruption, is common in
prisons around the world. Given the substantial power that guards exercised over inmates, these
problems are predictable, but the low salaries that guards are generally paid severely aggravate
them. In exchange for contraband or special treatment, inmates supplement guards' salaries with
bribes. Powerful inmates in some facilities in Colombia, India, and Mexico enjoyed cellular
phones, rich diets, and comfortable lodgings, while their less fortunate brethren lived in squalor.
Unsatisfactory living conditions
Overcrowding itself leads to unsatisfactory living conditions. Although several jail reforms
outlined earlier have focused on issues like diet, clothing and cleanliness, unsatisfactory living
conditions continue in many prisons around the country. A special commission of inquiry,
appointed after the 1995 death of a prominent businessman in India’s high-security Tihar Central
Jail, reported in 1997 that 10 000 inmates held in that institution endured serious health hazards,
including overcrowding, “appalling” sanitary facilities and a shortage of medical staff (Human
Rights Watch 2006)
No one wants to go to prison however good the prison might be. To be deprived of liberty and
family life and friends and home surroundings is a terrible thing.
To improve prison conditions does not mean that prison life should be made soft; it means that
it should be made human and sensible.
Staff shortage and poor training
Prisons in India have a sanctioned strength of 49030 of prison staff at various ranks, of which,
the present staff strength is around 40000. The ratio between the prison staff and the prison
population is approximately 1:7. It means only one prison officer is available for 7 prisoners,
while in the UK, 2 prison officers are available for every 3 prisoners.
Inadequate prison programmes
Despite the problems of overcrowding, manpower shortage and other administrative difficulties,
innovative initiatives have been undertaken in some prisons. Many prisons have vocational
training activities, but these are often outdated. Hardly any of the prisons have well planned
prison programmes providing structured daily activities, vocational training, pre-discharge
guidance and post-prison monitoring.
Poor spending on health care and welfare
In India, an average of US$ 333 (INR 10 474) per inmate per year was spent by prison
authorities during the year 2005, distributed under the heads of food, clothing, medical expenses,
vocational/educational, welfare activities and others.(National Crime Records Bureau 2005).
This is in contrast to the US, where the average annual operating cost per state inmate in 2001
was $ 22,650 (the latter presumably also includes salaries of prison staff). The maximum
expenditure in Indian prisons is on food. West Bengal, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
Bihar and Delhi reported relatively higher spending on medical expenses during that year, while
Bihar, Karnataka and West Bengal reported relatively higher spending on vocational and
educational activities. Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Chhattisgarh reported relatively higher spending
on welfare activities.
Lack of legal aid
In India, legal aid to those who cannot afford to retain counsel is only available at the time of
trial and not when the detainee is brought to the remand court. Since the majority of prisoners,
those in lock up as well as those in prisons have not been tried, absence of legal aid until the
point of trial reduces greatly the value of the country’s system of legal representation to the poor.
Lawyers are not available at the point when many of them mostly need such assistance.
Health Problems in prisons
The overcrowding, poor sanitary facilities, lack of physical and mental activities, lack of decent
health care, all increase the likelihood of health problems in prisons. Kazi et al (2009) mention
that prisons are ‘excellent venues for infectious disease screening and intervention, given the
conditions of poverty and drug addiction’.
It is surprising and indeed shocking that despite the large prison population in India, there is a
complete dearth of published information regarding the prevalence of health problems in prisons.
Tuberculosis (TB) is a serious problem among prison populations around the world. Prisoners in
India are vulnerable to TB because they are from the most disadvantaged socioeconomic strata of
society, and have poor nutrition, before entering the prison as well as the poor diet inside the
prison plays a contributing role. Further, Prisons are overcrowded and have poor ventilation.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic ravaged prison populations, around the world reporting grossly
disproportionate rates of HIV infection and of confirmed AIDS cases. Inmates around the world
frequently died of AIDS while incarcerated, often deprived of even basic medical care‟ (Human
Rights Watch Report 2001). In countries like India, Indonesia and Thailand, HIV prevalence in
prisons is between two and 15 times greater in the prison populations than in the general
community. Most prisoners bring in HIV infection when they enter the prison. High risk sexual
behaviours are common in prisons, and combined with a lack of poor knowledge of HIV/other
STI transmission and a paucity of services makes this a very hidden and difficult problem to
tackle. A study conducted in Chennai in 2005 found that the HIV prevalence was 37% among 48
IDUs who were “ever in jail”, compared with 21% among 20 IDUs who had never been
incarcerated. The authors found that 16% of HIV risk among IDUs in Chennai could be
attributed to having been imprisoned (Panda et al 2005). In India, there is no clear policy on
testing for HIV in prisons in general, nor is there a uniform policy on access to voluntary
counselling and testing. Anecdotal reports suggest that a few state prisons require testing at
entry; some require it during custody and others before release. Lack of privacy is a common
issue for those diagnosed as HIV positive.
Women and Health Care in Prisons
Although the population of women in prisons is relatively low, their adverse social positions and
social disadvantage make them more liable to rejection from families and greater dejection when
they are in prison. Majority of the women in prisons are illiterate and belong to the marginalized
sections of the society. The conditions are far from adequate in women jails. There is lack of
adequate medical, education and vocational support for women prisoners (Madhurima,2009).
The female prison population is disproportionately affected by mental health problems, with higher
levels of depression compared to both the general populations and the male prisoners. The Model
Prison Jail manual discusses proper medical treatment and psychotherapy for mentally disturbed
patients. In practice, however, women prisons lacked these facilities and mental health problem
remained largely undiagnosed & untreated.
Mention two most important problems of Indian prisons
.
Conclusion
Prisons reflect degree of civilization of a society. It is an important organ of criminal justice system.
Dilapidated conditions of prisons lead to low self-esteem and degradation of inmates. Poor rate of
conviction, unnecessary and lengthy procedure of trial , production mechanism of prisoners in
courts, creation of unnecessary hurdles in awarding jail remission to prisoners, problem of holding
courts in jails, over-crowding, accommodation facilities, non-existence of medical testing
laboratories, lack of market oriented jail industries and improper security arrangements are standing
problems that demand comprehensive program for prison reforms. Such dismal picture of prisons
hinders the reformative/ rehabilitative process of prisoners.
16.5 Summary
In the present lesson community and prisons as form of correction system have been discussed.
Community corrections involve the management and supervision of offenders in the community.
These offenders are serving court-imposed orders either as an alternative to imprisonment or as a
condition of their release on parole from prison. This means they must report regularly to their
community corrections officer and may have to participate in unpaid community work and
rehabilitation programs. In prison they have to serve the sentence given to them by court.
Additionally the historical overview of prison system and types of issues prisoners face have also
been highlighted.
16.6 Further readings :

Chandha, Kumkum (1983) Indian jail: A contemporary document. Vikas Publisher, New Delhi.
Roy, Jaytilak Guha(1989)Prison and society: A study of the Indian jail system. Gian Publishing
House, New Delhi.

Discuss Community based Correctional Programmes? Do they help in checking recidivism?
Write a note on Prisons as a form of correctional system ?
Lesson No 17
NEW DELHI MODEL OF CORRECTION
Structure
17.0 Objectives
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Major Problems in Prison Reforms
17.4 Prison Reforms
17.5 Role of Judiciary

17.6 Reforms in Tihar
17.7. Summary
17.8 Model Questions
17.0Objectives
After going through this lesson, you shall be able to:
 Understand the problems faced by prisoners during their trail periods;
 Know about Tihar Jail in details
17.1 Introduction
The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by its prisons. A society cannot be
recognized as a civilized society unless it treats the prisoners with sympathy and affection. This
treatment is not possible till the society recognizes and accepts their basic human rights and the
fundamental rights. A prisoner, be he a convict or under trial or a detenu, does not cease to be a
human being. Even when lodged in jail, he continues to enjoy all his basic human rights and
fundamental rights including the right to life guaranteed to him under the Constitution. On being
convicted of crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure established by
law, prisoners shall retain the residue of the Constitutional rights. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 1948 stipulates that “ No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment”. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, recognizes that the
right to life includes a right to live with human dignity and not mere animal existence, and
strengthens this mandate. Thus, a prison atmosphere can be accepted as civilized only if it
recognizes the basic human rights and the constitutional rights of the prisoners and makes efforts
for the effective and meaningful enjoyment of the same by means of prison reforms.
17.2 Major Problems in Prison:
The literature on prison justice & prison reform shows that there are nine major problems which
afflict the system and which need immediate attention. These are:
(1) overcrowding;
(2) delay in trial;
(3) torture and ill-treatment;
(4) neglect of health and hygiene;
(5) insubstantial food & inadequate clothing ;
(6) prison vices
(7) deficiency in communication;
(8) streamlining of jail visits; and
(9) management of open-air prisons.
Overcrowding Jails are overcrowded is a known fact. To illustrate, in Tihar Jail as against the
housing capacity of 2,500 persons in 1994-95, there were 8,500 prisoners. Overcrowding
contributes to a greater risk of disease, higher noise levels, surveillance difficulties, which
increase the danger level. This apart, life is more difficult for inmates and works more onerous
for staff when prisoners are in over capacity. Overcrowding effects the health of prisoners. The
same also very adversely affects hygienic condition. It is, therefore, to be taken care of. The
release on bail of certain categories of under trial prisoners, who constitute the bulk of prison
population, has to result in lessening the over capacity. It would be useful to refer here to the
Seventy-Eighth Report of the Law commission of Indian on `Congestion of Under trial Prisoners
in Jails'. The Commission has in Chapter 9 of the Report made some recommendations
acceptance of which would relieve congestion in jails. These suggestions include liberalisation of
conditions of release on bail. Overcrowding may also be taken care of by taking recourse to
alternatives to incarceration. These being: (1) fine; (2) civil commitment; and (3) probation. As
to release on probation, it may be stated that it really results in suspension of required to execute
bond under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, requiring maintenance of
good conduct during the probationary period, the failure to do which finds the concerned person
in prison again. That Act has provision of varying conditions of probation and has also set down
the procedure to be followed in case of the offenders failing to observe conditions.
Overcrowding is reduced by releases on parole as well, which is a conditional release of an
individual from prison after he has served part of the sentence imposed upon him.
Delay in Trial It is apparent that delay in trial finds an under trial prisoner (UTP)in jail for a
longer period while waiting the decision of the case. The release of UTP on bail where the trial
gets protracted would hopefully take care to a great extent the hardship caused in this regard. It
has to be remembered that production before the court on remand dates is a statutory obligation
and the same has a meaning also inasmuch as that the production gives an opportunity to the
prisoner to bring to the notice of the Court, who had ordered for his custody, if he has faced any
ill-treatment or difficulty during the period of remand. It is for this reason that actual production
of the prisoner is required to be insured by the trial court before ordering for further remand. The
mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to
undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the
accused to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country in holding the
right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Art.21.
Speedy trial would encompass within its sweep all the stages including investigation, inquiry,
trial, appeal, revision and retrial. In short everything commencing with an accusation and
expiring with the final verdict, the two being respectively the “terminus a quo and terminus ad
quem” of the journey which an accused must necessarily undertake once faced with an
implication.
Torture and ill-treatment
Apart from torture, various other physical ill treatments like putting of fetters, iron bars are
generally taken recourse to in jails. Some of these are under the colour of provisions in Jail
Manuals.
Neglect of health and hygiene
The prisoners do not enjoy the access to medical expertise that free citizens have. Their
incarceration places limitations on such access; no physician of choice, no second opinions, and
few if any specialists. Also, because of the conditions of their incarceration, inmates are exposed
to more health hazards than free citizens. Prisoners therefore, suffer from a double handicap
Insubstantial food and inadequate clothing
There is not much to doubt that the rules contained in concerned Jail Manual dealing with food
and clothing etc. to be given to prisoners are not fully complied with always. All that can
usefully he said on this aspect is the persons who are entitled to inspect jails should do so after
giving shortest notice so that the reality becomes known on inspection. The system of complaint
box introduced in Tihar Jail during some period needs to be adopted in other jails also. The
complaint received must be fairly inquired and appropriate actions against the delinquent must
be taken. On top of all, prisoners must receive full assurance that whoever would lodge a
complaint would not suffer any evil consequence for lodging the same.
Prison vices
It may only be stated that some vices may be taken care of if what is being stated later on the
subject of jail visits is given concrete shape. Many of the vices are related to sexual urge, which
remains unsatisfied because of snapping of marital life of the prisoner. If something could be
done to keep the thread of family life unbroken some vices many take care of themselves, as
sexual frustration may become tolerable. The aforesaid seems to be a more rational way to deal
with prison vices rather than awarding hard punishment to them. In the situation in which they
are placed, a sympathetic approach is also required.
Deficiency in communication
While in jail, communication with outside world gets snapped with a result that the inmate does
not know what is happening even to his near and dear ones. This causes additional trauma. A
liberalized view relating to communication with kith and kin specially is desirable. It may be
pointed out that though there may be some rationale for restricting visits, but insofar as
communication by post is concerned, there does not seem be any plausible reason to deny easy
facility to an inmate.
Streamlining of jail visits
The frequent jail visits by family members go a long way in acceptance of the prisoner by his
family and small friendly group after his release from jail finally, as the visits continue the
personal relationship during the term of imprisonment, which brings about a psychological
communion between him and other members of the family.
Management of open air prisons
Open-air prisons play an important role in the scheme of reformation of a prisoner, which has to
be one of the desideratum of prison management. They represent one of the most successful
applications of the principle of individualization of penalties with a view to social readjustment.
It has been said so because release of offenders on probation, home leave to prisoners,
introduction of wage system, release on parole, educational, moral and vocational training of
prisoners are some of the features of the open air prison (camp) system. In terms of finances,
open institution is far less costly than a closed establishment and the scheme has further
advantage that the Government is able to employ in work, for the benefit of the public at large,
the jail population, which would have otherwise remained unproductive. The monetary returns
are positive, and once put into operation, the camps pay for itself. The whole thrust is to see that
after release the prisoners may not relapse into crimes, for which purpose they are given
incentives to live normal life, as they are trained in the fields of agriculture, horticulture etc.
Games, sports and other recreational facilities, which form part of the routine life at the open-air
camps, inculcate in the prisoners a sense of discipline and social responsibility. The prayers
made regularly provide spiritual straight. Open air prison; however, have their own problems,
which are basically of management. These problems are not such that cannot be sorted out.
17.4 Prison Reforms
Experts believe that the main objective of prisons is to bring the offenders back to the
mainstream of the society. Various workshops had been organized by the State Government in
collaboration with NGO’s to bring reforms in the current prison systems.
Many reforms can be made in jail administration, which are mainly: A- Class prisoners can meet
their own expenditure by depositing certain amount fixed by the Government for enjoying
special services like tea, newspapers, pillow, and 3 times non vegetarian food in a week and if
they are vegetarian they will be served ghee, dhal and buttermilk. Many inmates usually
complain about inadequate quality and quantity of food, which is required to be improved. The
food is required to be prepared in better hygienic conditions.
Rehabilitation of inmates will be meaningful only if they are employed after release and for that
purpose educational facilities should be introduced or upgraded. In many jails, inmates including
hardcore criminals and women had joined various courses offered by IGNOU and their
respective State Universities. In many jails with a view of imparting vocational training a full-
fledged computer training centers has been established. The inmates are also provided training in
carpentry and fabric painting. Many jails have also initiated programs for women empowerment
by training then in weaving, making toys, stitching and making embroidery items. Wage earning
and gratuity schemes and incentives are also used to reduce the psychological burden on the
convicts. Recently, the Government of Himachal Pradesh had lifted ban on wearing Gandhi cap
in jails. Various seminars are organized by jail authorities to enlighten the prisoners on their legal
rights, health and sanitation problems, HIV/AIDS and issues of mental health, juveniles,
minorities and steps to reduce the violence in prisons.
The open prison system has come as a very modern and effective alternative to the system of
closed imprisonment. The establishment of open prisons on a large scale as a substitute for the
closed prisons, the latter being reserved for hardcore criminals shall be one of the greatest prison
reforms in the penal system.
The Jail Reform Committee, 1980-83 has given the following recommendations in this regard:
(1) Departmentalisation: There shall be in each State and Union Territory a Department of
Prisons and Correctional services dealing with the adult and the young offenders- their
institutional care, treatment, aftercare, probation and other non-institutional services.
(2) Under trial prisoners (UTPs): The State shall endeavour to evolve proper mechanism to
ensure that no under trial prisoner is unnecessary detained. This shall be achieved speeding up
trials, simplification of bail procedures and periodic review of cases of under trial prisoners.
Under trial prisoners should, as far as possible, be confined in separate institutions.
(3) Alternatives to imprisonment: Since it is recognized that imprisonment is not always the best
way to meet the objectives of punishment, the government shall endeavour to provide in law,
new alternatives to imprisonment such as community service, forfeiture of property, payment of
compensation to victims, public censure, etc in addition to the ones already existing, and shall
specifically ensure that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is effectively implemented
throughout the country.
(4) Suitable living conditions: Living condition in every prison and allied institutions shall be
compatible with human dignity in all aspects such as accommodation, hygiene, sanitation, food,
clothing, medical facilities etc. All factors responsible for vitiating the atmosphere of these
institutions shall be identified and dealt with effectively.
(5) Prison cadre: Prison service shall be developed as a professional career service. The State
shall endeavour to develop a well-organised prison cadre based on appropriate job requirements,
sound training and proper promotional avenues.
(6) Open prisons: Prisons are hitherto a closed world. It is necessary to open them to some kind
of positive and public discernment. Selected eminent public men shall be authorized to visit
prisons and give independent report on them to appropriate authorities.
(7) Essential functions: Probation, aftercare, rehabilitation, and follow up offenders shall form
an integral part of the functions of the Department of prisons and correctional services.
(8) Planned and systematic development: The development of prisons shall be planned in a
systematic manner keeping in view the objectives and goals to be achieved. The progress of
implementation of such plans shall be continuously monitored and periodically evaluated.
(9) Resource allocation: The government at the Center and in the States/Union Territories shall
endeavour to provide adequate resources for the development of prisons and other allied
services.
(10) National development plan: The government recognizes that the process of reformation and
rehabilitation of offenders is an integral part of the total process of social reconstructions, and
therefore, the development of prison shall find a place in the national development plans.
17.5 Role Played By Judiciary :
The courts have in recent years been giving serious thought to the of human rights of prisoners
and have, on that ground, interfered with the exercise of powers of superintendents of jails in
respect of measures for safe custody, good order and discipline. At present police lock-ups and
sub-jails, though under the superintendence of magistrates of judicial or medical officers, are
guarded by the police. This is in contravention of the basic judicial principle of keeping accused
persons away from the influence of "the police. This also involves the question of human rights
and it is right time that the administrative control of these institutions is brought under the Prison
Department. Recently, the Supreme Court of India took exception to the unduly long detention of
a large number of under trial prisoners and the Central and State governments have now started
taking vigorous steps to remedy this situation. The system of bail will have to be liberalized and
new instructions to act as sureties for the appearance of the under trial prisoners when required in
courts will have to be evolved. The need for introducing radical changes in legal and
administrative procedures to prevent long detention of under trials has been stressed. Legal aid to
needy prisoners is also being given due importance. There is thus a clear trend to reduce the
number of under trials and to expedite their trial in recognition of their human rights.
The Supreme Court has also given directions from time to time in various cases for the
amelioration of prison conditions. These are:
(1) Separation of the young offenders: The young inmates must be separated and freed from
exploitation by adults.
(2) Companionship: Subject to discipline and other security criteria, the right of the society of
fellow men, parents and other family members cannot be denied in the light of Article 19 and its
sweep.
(3) Legal consultancy: Lawyers nominated by courts be given all facilities for interview, visits,
and confidential communication with prisoners, subject to discipline and security
considerations.
(4) Judicial surveillance: District Magistrates and Sessions Judges shall personally or through
surrogates, visit prisons in their jurisdiction and afford effective opportunities for ventilating
legal grievances of the prisoners.
(5) Standard Minimum Rules: The State shall take steps to keep up to the Standard Minimum
Rules for treatment of prisoners recommended by the United Nations, especially those relating to
work and wages, treatment with dignity, community contact and correctional strategy.
(6) Just and rationale Prison Act and Manual: The Prisons Act needs modification and the Prison
Manual total overhaul. A correctional cum orientation course has become necessitous for the
prison staff indicating the constitutional values, therapeutic approaches and tension free
management.
(7) Legal protection of prisoner’s rights: The court shall protect the prisoner’s right by its writ
jurisdiction plus contempt power. To make this jurisdiction viable, free legal services to the
prisoners shall be promoted through recognized legal aid.
17.6 REFORMS IN TIHAR JAIL: A Correction Centre of Excellence
The amount of mental, physical and sexual abuse that takes place in prisons has come to the
forefront especially after the scandal of the Abu Gharib Prison in Iraq. The problems associated
with Indian prisons are not less grave. Overcrowding, lack of healthcare facilities, torture, rape
and death are causes of concern. But there is an exception that stands as a glowing example not
only for Indian prisons but also for any prison and prison administration in the world. It is Tihar
Jail. Tihar Jail is situated in the capital city of Delhi and for the last ten years or so has made a
strong impact on the lives of its inmates. This is despite the fact that the jail, like other jails of the
country, is unbelievably over populated. The total capacity of Tihar Jail is 4000, i.e. 3,600 male
inmates and 400 women inmates. But in reality the prison has 12,793 males and 570 women,
raising the number of total inmates to an astounding 13,363. With a view to reforming the
prisoners and enabling them to start a normal and financially rewarding life after release, the
prison administration has started several reform and correctional measures. Tihar is also known
for the rehabilitation program run in the jail premises. Under this program, the jail authorities
help the prisoners or inmates, as referred by jail authorities, to conduct themselves in a better
way which helps them lead a better life after their release. The atmosphere provided by the jail
authorities compels the prisoners to work which diverts their mind from other mischievous
things. Tihar Jail authorities have worked hard for the welfare of their inmates. They have been
bringing out new ideas for its betterment.
Educational Facilities
The prison administration has provided facilities for education of inmates by getting affiliated
with the Indira Gandhi National Open University and the National Open School. There are also
computer-training centers for the inmates. The most important aspect of the education system in
Tihar Jail is that educated prisoners voluntarily teach less educated prisoners. An illiterate
prisoner can look forward to being literate if his stay is more than a week. Library facility has
been provided with the support of non-governmental organizations. Vocational classes in
English/ Hindi typing and Commercial Arts are conducted by Directorate of Training &
Technical Education and certificates are issued to successful students.
Computer training
Computer training centers are also in the Prisons for imparting computer education to the
prisoners. The most important aspect of the education system in Tihar Jail is that educated
prisoners voluntarily teach less educated prisoners under the program Padho aur Padhao .An
illiterate person landing in Tihar Jail can look forward to being literate if his stay is more than a
week. Capsule computer courses of six months duration are provided to the willing, and eligible
inmates with the help of NGO Sterlite Foundation.
Vocational Training
Training on pen manufacturing, book binding, manure making, screen printing, envelope
making, tailoring and cutting, shoe-making etc. are regularly provided to the inmates. These
training programmes have not only resulted in learning of different trades but also provided
monetary gains to the prisoners. For the post release rehabilitation of the prisoners, the Social
Welfare Department of Delhi Govt. provides loans for setting up self-employed units. The jail
inmates have started generating income. It made about 300 million rupees in revenue this fiscal
year, according to jail officials. Its bakery sells TJ’s cookies at a network of TJ shops and
upscale malls around the capital. Its woodworking factory sells a large computer table for
5,251.50 rupees. A small shop just outside Tihar’s walls sells sweets, white dress shirts, candles
and cleaning products made by the inmates, as well as their paintings.
Job Placement
Recently, 10 inmates got job placements in the campus interview organized by Tihar Jail
authorities and IGNOU. This initiative helped the inmates to get back their respect in society
which they lost when they were arrested. The pay scale of the candidates was from Rs. 7,000/-
per month to Rs. 25, 000/- per month depending on their ability.
Prisoners' Panchayats
Prisoners' bodies called “Panchayats” are constituted to help prison administration in the field of
education, vocational education, legal counseling, kitchen, public works etc. Prisoners are
encouraged to participate in the management of their welfare activities. Sense of responsibility is
inculcated in the prisoners to prepare them for social integration after release.
Yoga and Meditation
The concept of introducing Yoga and meditation in the jail has created history and has received
wide accreditation by various national and international human rights organization. For cleansing
and disciplining mind, yoga and meditation classes are conducted in a big way with the help of
various voluntary organizations. In the year 1994 Tihar Jail created a history by organizing a
Vipassana Meditation camp for more than one thousand prisoners. Since then a permanent
Vipassana center has been opened in Tihar Jail No.4, where two courses of ten days duration are
organized regularly. Legal Aid Cells Legal Aid Cells with facilities for drafting, typing and
dealing with bail applications, misc. applications, appeals, revision etc. on behalf of the Jail
inmates have been opened. Since majority of prisoners are economically poor and are not in a
position to avail the services of expensive lawyers, legal aid cells are of great help in dealing
with their cases.
Facility for Psychological Treatment
The prison authorities have started special psychological treatments for prisoners. Creative Art
Therapy, which is psychotherapeutic in nature, is used in several settings. In respect to prison
setting, the therapy serves as a reformatory process in several ways. Firstly and most
importantly, it helps the inmates to express, channelize and ventilate their anger, grievances and
feelings. One has to keep in mind that anyone convicted or otherwise exiled from the rest of the
world is initially bound to have tremendous anger, aggression, and sense of helplessness,
hopelessness and emotional problems. Therefore, by practicing Creative Art, the individual is
able to release his pent up emotions and realise his worth.
Prisoners' Grievance Cell
A prisoner grievance cell is working effectively under the charge of Petition Officer and
immediate remedial steps are taken on the complaints/ grievances of the prisoners. Prisoners
have been provided facilities to write complaints and send them to senior officers either through
fixed complaint boxes located at convenient places or through the mobile petition box meant for
petitions addressed to D.G./ Addl. I.G. (Prisons), which is taken to all the enclosures every day.
Jail Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and even senior officers have frequent meetings with
the prisoners openly where prisoners' grievances are listened carefully and solutions provided.
Community Participation
As a part of community participation in the reformation and social integration of prisoners after
release, a large number of respectable members of non-governmental organisations, retired
Major Generals, Professors of I.I.T. Delhi, Eminent Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Principals and
Teachers of various educational institutions have been conducting various activities in the jail.
These programmes have very sobering and positive impact on the psyche of the prisoners, who
have been shown the positive and constructive approach to life after interaction with them.
NGOs' participation is mainly concentrated in the field of education, vocation and counseling.
Apart from the formal education with the NGO support, the classes in various languages like
Urdu, Punjabi, German, French etc. are also held. Some of the NGOs have trained selected
prisoners on various trades and have been bringing job for them against payment of
remuneration. They also rehabilitate these prisoners after their release.
Drug de-addiction center:
It opened in 2002 inside the jail itself where all the inmates were taken for a preliminary checkup
and those who were either drug addicts or drug abusers were retained there for treatment. Many
inmates have benefited from this and got rid of their addictions and even want to live a better life
after their terms are over.
The reform initiatives taken up in Tihar Jail are examples for others. It shows that force is always
not necessary to control and correct the prison inmates. The manner in which the Tihar
administration has taken up the system of rehabilitation, it becomes important for other prisons
of the nation to follow suit. The central as well as state governments must also take the initiatives
to take actions so that this system of rehabilitation is encouraged, promoted and practiced.
The most fascinating thing about the rehabilitation program run by Tihar Jail is that it is not
optional. Every inmate has to be involved in it except those in high security cells. The inmates
are motivated to live a better life after the end of their term. Tihar Jail is really bringing out gems
from people who had sunk into the deep coal mine of crime.
Name two facilities provided in Tihar jail for prisoners.
17.7 Summary -
One can hope that in the years to come the present gap between the prisons in theory and practice
will be bridged quickly and a well-planned and well-coordinated programme of treatment and
rehabilitation of offenders in jail will be implemented for which adequate and efficient staff and
financial resources will be provided. The financial assistance extended to the upgrading of
prisons by the Finance Commission and the recent unprecedented concern and awareness shown
at the level of the State and Central governments for improving prison conditions will, it is
expected, bring about marked changes in correction and rehabilitation of offenders confined in
prisons.
17.8 Further Readings:
Devasia, V.V. (1993) Criminology, Victimology and Corrections, Delhi: Ashish Publications.
Delhi Prison Adminstration, New Delhi: Helping hand a Tihar model. Delhi Prison
Administration, New Delhi, 1998.
1. Discuss the problem faced by the under trial Prisoners?
2. Discuss the Delhi Based Model of correction.

Lesson -18
Correctional Administration
Structure
18.0 Objectives
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Meaning of corrections
18.3 Contemporary Corrections
18.5 Significance
18.6 Probation
18.7 Parole
18.8 After care and Rehabilitation
18.9 Summary
18.0 Objectives
After going through this lesson you will be able to.
 explain the meaning of community based corrections

 distinguish between Probation and Parole.
 Know about After care and Rehabilitation
18.1 Introduction
The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had constituted a working Group on Prisons
in 1972 which for the first time emphasized the need to have a national policy on Prisons. The
main objective of correctional administration to take care of prisons and provide alternatives to
imprisonment. In this chapter an effort has been made to discuss community based corrections,
after care and rehabilitation.
18.2 Meaning of Correction: the component of the criminal justice system that is responsible
for carrying out sentences mandated by the court and for carrying out executions of individuals
sentenced to death penalty is corrections the corrections component of also has the responsibility
of monitoring the location and behaviors of individuals charged with crimes while these
individuals are processed through the system. Jails, prisons, probation, parole, conditional release
are all considered as corrections.
Sociology of Corrections: a sociological approach to corrections is important for understanding

the ways correctional organizations, institutional practices, and employees serve the needs of
society as one important component of social control. Additionally, sociological approaches
always emphasize understanding the basic culture of groups and organizations and the ways
individuals interact with and are influenced by social structures.
18.3Contemporary Corrections
Contemporary corrections are based on two approaches-namely, institutional corrections and

community corrections. Institutional corrections include any instance of incarceration, usually a
prison or a jail. Community corrections are larger in terms of the number of criminal offenders
who live and are supervised in the community. The most common forms of community
corrections are probation and parole. Community corrections also include programs, usually
referred to as ‘intermediate sanctions’ that lie between incarceration and probation in their
degree of restrictions and supervision.
18.4Community Corrections:
The practice of imprisoning convicted criminals is a relatively modern and expensive way of
dealing with them. Up to two or three hundred years ago, they were dealt with by execution,
corporal punishments such as disfigurement or branding. It is only in the last 30 years that
community corrections have become a substantial part of the correctional system. Beginning in
the 1950s, attention was focused on the development of alternative, community-based
correctional services. In the early stages of the community corrections movement, local
institutions, residential centers, group homes and specialized probation services were promoted
as alternatives to incarceration. In recent years, the push for alternatives to incarceration has, in
large part, been in response to rapidly increasing prison populations in the world. Community
corrections involve the supervision of offenders while they are in the community.
Community corrections may be defined as any activity performed by agents of the government to
assist offenders to establish or reestablish law-abiding roles in the community while at the same
time monitoring their behavior for criminal activity. In theory, monitoring and assisting
offenders while in the community protects society from criminal predation without taxpayers
having to shoulder the financial cost of incarcerating all its offenders.
18.5 Significance
There are a number of reasons that highlight the importance of Community corrections.
1. The Cost of Community Corrections
The cost of community corrections is an issue continually debated. Most community correctional
programs emphasize that the use of community alternatives is not as costly as traditional
incarceration.
Approximately 90% of the cost of running an existing prison is relatively fixed (e g.,
administrative costs); therefore, a small reduction in prison counts will not produce tremendous
cost savings (Landreville, 1995). However, if new prisons need to be built to accommodate
increasing prison populations, the cost savings of community alternatives would be substantial.
Similarly, if alternatives to incarceration result in institutional closures, considerable cost savings
can be realized.
2.Reduction of Prison Population
Community sanctions are often referred to as alternatives to incarceration. Doob (1990) asserts
that there are three basic assumptions underlying the introduction of alternatives to
imprisonment:
1) In the absence of a wide range of alternatives, judges are reluctantly imprisoning offenders.
2) Those offenders who are presently being given community sanctions are receiving sentences
that involve, from the judges' perspective, sufficient control, punishment, or rehabilitative
opportunities.
3) Judges will automatically see the new community sanction as appropriate for a wide range of
offenders who, previously, were predominantly receiving sentences of imprisonment.
3.Humanitarianism
Community corrections programs are said to be an obvious improvement over traditional

corrections programs for humanitarian reasons. Community corrections are considered
humanitarian in that they provide less serious offenders with alternatives that let them continue
with various aspects of their lives. Community corrections programs are also considered to be
humanitarian because they avoid many of the negative effects of incarceration, including
stigmatization, damage to physical and/or mental health and constant exposure to criminal peers
(Vyas, 1995).
4.Effectiveness
Advocates of community corrections argue that community programs are more effective than
imprisonment. Effectiveness can be measured in terms of reducing recidivism, avoiding
exposure to undesirable effects and promoting the successful re-integration of offenders into the
community. Studies have shown that incarceration is not more effective than community
corrections in preventing re-offending (Vyas, 1995) and treatment programs have been shown to
be more effective when delivered in a community setting (Gendreau & Andrews, 1990).
Furthermore, community corrections programs spare offenders many of the negative effects of
imprisonment.
Community corrections programs also facilitate many of the factors associated with an offender's
successful re-integration into the community. For offenders being released from imprisonment
into a community residential facility or community correctional centre, the benefits of
community corrections are obvious. Not only is the offender provided with the opportunity to
gradually reintegrate into society, he or she is also able to pursue employment and educational
opportunities. Further, family ties are better maintained when an offender is residing at a
community-based facility rather than a prison.
Self-assessment questions
 Name the two types of community corrections.

 What do you mean by community corrections?
18.6 Probation
The most common form of community corrections, and in fact most common form of criminal
sentence is Probation, where the offenders live in the community while having restrictions placed
on their movements.
The term probation comes from the Latin term probare, meaning “to prove.” Because probation
is a conditional release into the community, the probation period is a time of testing a person’s
character and his or her ability to meet certain requirements. That is, convicted persons must
prove to the court that they are capable of remaining in the community and living up to its legal
and moral standards.
Probation has emerged as a technique to mitigate the consequences of severe punishment when
imprisonment became the more common mode of penal sanction. Probation is a court-imposed
disposition that places the offender or juvenile delinquent under the supervision and assistance of
the probation office, while allowing them to remain in the community. As long as they abide by
the conditions of probation, probationers can avoid being committed to prisons or juvenile
training schools. Probation came into existence to save some selected types of persons from the
rigours of punishment even if found guilty by a court of law.
In England and the USA the source of probation can be traced to the binding over of a person for
good behaviour or recognizance for appearance in the court when required. This was done with
the cooperation of friends or other persons who voluntarily stood sureties for the person who
would have otherwise been sent to prison. In Massachusetts in 1830 a woman was prosecuted for
committing a theft in house. She pleaded guilty but upon application of her friends, the court did
not sentence her on the condition that the friends be responsible for her appearance when called
by the court. In 1831 she was acquitted before the same court of another charge of larceny.
Curiously enough, she was sentenced on the basis of earlier crime of larceny.
The first legislative piece of probation in India was section 562 of the CrPC, 1898. it
provided for release on probation of the first offenders in the discretion of the court for minor
offences punishable up to two years of imprisonment. The provision was liberalized in 1923 to
include offences punishable up to 7 years imprisonment both under the penal code as well as
under special or local laws. In case of young male offenders under the age of 21 years and all
female offenders, the benefit extended to all the offences except those punishable with death or
life imprisonment.
Probation is a sentence imposed by a court for which an offender has a sentence of incarceration
suspended. While on probation, a probation officer monitors their activities, meets the offender
periodically, and may administer drug or alcohol tests or impose other monitoring requirements
on the offender. An offender who violates the conditions of probation receives a technical
violation. If a probationer is found to be in violation, a judge will decide to either reinstate
probation with additional restrictions or revoke the probation status and incarcerate the offender.
If a probationer is found to have committed another crime, the offender’s probation is generally
revoked.
Corrective Measures under the Probation of Offenders Act: Probation is a significant

corrective technique which is being increasingly resorted to as a form of corrective sentence in
the administration of criminal justice system. The technique of probation involves suspension of
the sentence with two effects in view, first, the non- enforcement of the traditional penal sanction
may afford a chance to the offender to correct and rehabilitate himself in the society, and
secondly, the period of probation
Indian law is different from the English law. Under English law, in every case when an
offender is to be released under probation, he is to be placed under a supervisor which not
necessarily the position in India. The court in India may release the offender under a bond with
or without sureties and without any arrangement for supervision.
The sole intention of the legislature in passing probation laws is to give persons of a
particular type a chance of reformation which they would not get if sent to prison. The type of
persons who are in the contemplation of the legislature under the probation laws are those who
are not hardened or dangerous criminals but those who have committed offences under some
momentary weakness of character or some tempting situation. By placing the offender on
probation the court saves him from the stigma of jail life and also from the contaminating
influence of hardened prison inmates.
Selection of offenders for probation: selection of suitable cases for being placed on probation
and parole and subsequent follow up through competent supervision of the probationers and
parolees are the two basic elements of any effective programme of probation or parole. The
report of the probation officer is of primary importance as an aid to the court for making the
decision regarding the release on probation. An ideal report should give information regarding
family history and personal, social, economic factors of the offender and a plan for the
correctional treatment of the offender if the recommendation is for grant of probation. In short,
probation officer has to evaluate the personality of the offender. The court has to make the
decision after taking into consideration the probation officer’s report and nature and
circumstances of the offence.
The most important consideration is to appraise the risk involved to the society in releasing the
offender and whether the risk is worth taking in the context of the offender’s personality and
community at large. To some extent the job is done by the legislature by lying down that
probation shall not be granted in some serious offences which are punishable with death or life
imprisonment. The legislature may also lay down some guiding principles in terms of the age of
offenders, making probation more desirable in case of younger offenders.
 What is probation?
 The person in charge who supervises the conduct of probationers is known

as___________.
18.7 Parole: Professor Gillin has defined parole as the release from a penal or reformatory
institution of an offender who remains under the control of correctional authorities, in an attempt
to find out whether he is fit to live in the free society without supervision. Strictly speaking
parole is a privilege and no prisoner is entitled to it as a matter of right. The significance of
parole lays in the fact that it enables the prisoner a free social life, yet retaining some effective
control over him. It is difficult to define parole in terms of single precise concept. It is an integral
part of the total correctional process. In a sense parole is a method of selectively releasing
offenders from institutions, under supervision in the community, whereby' the community is
afforded continuing protection while the offender is making his adjustment and beginning his
contribution to society. In short, parole in criminal law is the release of a convict from
imprisonment upon certain conditions to be observed by him.
It is the supervision of an offender in the community following early release from incarceration.
Parolees are also subject to conditions that restrict their activities and are subject to both
technical and new crime violations, both of which could result in re-incarceration for the
remaining time on the original prison sentence. Parole is the release of an offender from the
prison before the expiration of the term of imprisonment. The object of parole is to prepare the
prisoner for adjustment to normal social life outside the prison and it, therefore, signifies the
transitory phase from imprisonment to normal freedom. While on parole the prisoner lives at
liberty subject to the conditions which may be imposed by the parole order. Violation of any
condition in the parole order may result in the cancellation of the order and the convict is to be
sent back to prison. The term parole is also often used to express the idea of furlough granted to
the prisoners to visit their families for short periods while completing their terms of
imprisonment. The object evidently is to keep the prisoner in contact with society in general and
his family in particular which would not otherwise be possible in case of long imprisonment.
The decision to release a prisoner is generally taken by a parole board. In India, under the rules
in force in some of the states, the opinion of the police department is also given due
consideration in taking the decision. The crucial question faced in making the decision, one way
or the other, is to be able to make the prediction regarding the outcome of release. This involves
the examination of issues such as whether the convict had profited by his stay in the institution,
whether h e had a home or other place to go, how serious his crime was. Based on such factors,
parole is granted.
According to Home Department, New Delhi there shall be two kinds of parole to which a
convict would be eligible:
(i) Custody parole and
(ii ) Regular parole.
Custody Parole
“Custody parole” would be granted in emergent circumstances as follows:-
1. Death of a family member;
2. Marriage of a family member;
3. Serious illness of a family member; or
4. Any other emergent circumstances.
Regular Parole: It would be open to the Government to consider applications for parole on
other grounds such as :-
1 Serious illness of a family member;

2 Critical conditions in the family on account of accident or death of a family member;
3. Marriage of any member of the family of the convict;
4. Delivery of a child by the wife of the convict if there is no other family member to take
care of the spouse at home;
5. Serious damage to life or property of the family of the convict including damage caused by
natural calamities;
6 To maintain family and social ties;
7 To pursue the filing of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India against a
judgment delivered by the High Court convicting or upholding the conviction, as the case
may be.
The procedure adopted for releasing a person under parole consists of two steps, selection
and supervision. A properly constituted parole committee has to select carefully those
inmates who are to be set free on parole. They assess both the eligibility and the suitability of
the inmates to be released on parole. The eligibility is decided by the statutes dealing with the
parole of inmates. They become eligible for parole after serving a specified minimum period
of confinement. The suitability to parole is determined by the committee from a variety of
data that are available with them. They weigh the positive and negative factors in each case
and on the basis of that parole is granted. It involves a balancing of the interests of the
prisoner and those of the public. Generally before granting parole, the authorities take into
consideration the reports from social agencies, pre-parole investigation reports, and
comments by the judge or prosecuting counsel, the studies and observations made by the
trained prison staff during the inmate's stay in the prison.
 Parole is often used to express the idea of ____________ .
 Who decides that prisoner is to be granted parole?
:_____________________________________________________________
18.8After care and Rehabilitation
After care
The main aim of after-care services is to reconstruct and restore institutionalized persons to
social positions of self-respect and also to enable them in settling down as law-abiding citizens in
the community. In essence aftercare is a forward step in the direction of complete rehabilitation
of the institutionalized persons and as a form of post-release assistance is closely interlinked with
the institutional training and treatment.
Aftercare as the harbinger of any rehabilitative endeavour and as a vital link in the correctional
cycle, has been considered as an approach and as a service designed to reduce the offender's
social isolation and dependence, to help him to get over his social handicap, to remove the social
stigma that darkens his present and future life and finally to accelerate the process of his
rehabilitation as a socially useful and productive citizen in the country. Aftercare is not a
benevolent activity intended to rescue either a fallen individual or a sort of patronage extended
by superior prisoners. Aftercare is rather based on the understanding of the needs and outlook of
the person who is going out of a correctional institution to face an unkind and inhospitable world
outside (Chattoraj,2006).
Origin and History of Aftercare in India
The importance of the aftercare of the released prisoners had been appreciated in India for a long
time. The Indian Jail Conference of 1877 for the first time discussed the question of helping ex-
convicts but did not take any positive steps to implement it. However a Discharged Prisoners Aid
Society was organized as a non-official agency in U.P. in 1894. Similar societies were organized
in Bengal and in Bombay but these societies could not continue to function for want of
government support and public sympathy. Simultaneously, steps were taken by the provincial
governments to help the discharged prisoners, and the Discharged Prisoner's Aid Societies were
formed in many provinces in the country. Mainly the object of such societies was to help the
released prisoners in their social and economic rehabilitation in the community.
An Advisory Committee on After-Care Programmes was appointed by the Central Social

Welfare Board in 1954 under the Chairmanship of Professor M.S.Gore to study, the nature and
size of the problem of adult convicts and juveniles who have been discharged from correctional
institutions, to determine the scope of after-care programmes for these individuals, to assess the
extent to which the existing after-care services meet the needs of the situation and specify the
manner in which they need to be developed and modified. The committee recommended a
practical base for the aftercare infrastructure and programmes in this country.
In pursuance of the Gore Committee's report, a comprehensive aftercare programme was started
during the Second and Third Five Year Plans at the instance of the Central Social Welfare Board
and a few aftercare homes and shelter were setup in some states. The government of India also
constituted a working group (1972-73), which defined correctional aftercare as a very essential
step in the criminal justice system. The Action Plan was brought up by the All India Committee
on Jail Reforms (1980-831, which also emphasized on establishment of Aftercare Homes to meet
the immediate needs of released prisoners for their proper readjustment in the society.
A well-rounded scheme for the welfare of prisoners in terms of their aftercare and rehabilitation,
as formulated under the seventh five-year plan, was circulated among all the states and Union
Territories for consideration.
The characteristics of an aftercare service can be said as
(1) it is a service intended for a person or persons who have undergone a certain period of 'care'
and training within an institution.
(2) It is a facility for a person or group of persons who has been found to be in special need by
reason of a social, physical or mental handicap.
(3) It is intended to complete the process of rehabilitation of an individual and to prevent the
possibility of his/her release into a life of dependence or custodial care. This would involve the
strengthening of his/her moral and emotional fiber and the removal of any stigma that may be
attached to his/her previous institutionalization.
The primary objectives of the aftercare services are twofold, (1) to facilitate the inmate's
rehabilitation and their subsequent reintegration into the community through fostering rapport
between inmates, their families and the staff; and (2) to help inmates to lead a law-abiding and
industrious life after release.
Rehabilitation: As a theory rehabilitation is usually associated with treatment of the offender. A

few think that all offenders are 'ill' and need to be 'cured' but the majority of criminologists see
punishment as a means of educating the offender. This has been the ideal and therefore the most
popular theory in recent years. However, there is reason to believe this theory is in decline and
Lord Windlesham has noted that if public opinion affects penal policy, as he thinks it does, then
there will be more interest shown in retribution in the future.
Rehabilitation is the idea of 'curing an offender of his or her criminal tendencies. It consists of
changing an offender's personality, outlook, habits or opportunities; so as to make him or her less
inclined to commit crimes. If an offender is successfully rehabilitated the ultimate benefits is to
the society who receives a law abiding citizen as well as the less likelihood of being victimized
by that offender. Rehabilitation is really punishment from the offender’s viewpoint any type of
sentence might be seen as a punishment, even if the sentencer’s intentions were in some other
direction. A requirement to undergo psychiatric treatment, to comply with a probation order or to
perform community service might be intended to benefit the offender, but it inevitably restricts
his liberty at the same time. This seems to be unjustified if the attempt at rehabilitation does not
work.
Rehabilitation programmes, in prison and for released inmates provide opportunities for
prisoners to change behaviours associated with criminal activity and learn more positive and
productive ones. Success in reducing recidivism can translate into improvements in public safety
and reintegration of former prisoners into the labour force, families, communities, schools and
religious organizations. Reducing recidivism has scope of far reaching benefits to communities
where released prisoners reside, often in their former neighbourhood. These communities
typically experience significant disadvantage in terms of high rates of crime, unemployment,
failing public schools and prevalence of low income households, etc.
Analyzing the rehabilitation given to the prisoners released during 2003,it can be seen that on an
all India basis among the total States 202,328 prisoners were released during 2003 only 1,810
prisoners were given any financial assistance and only 1,398 prisoners were rehabilitated. In the
Union Territories 11,390 convicts released only 106 prisoners were provided with financial
assistance and 28 were rehabilitated. Many States did not provide any financial assistance to the
prisoners released and also no one was rehabilitated. Taking the case of Kerala 1,744 prisoners
were released but no one was provided any financial assistance or rehabilitation. Among the 28
States, only Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal
gave at least a little bit of financial assistance. Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tamil
Nadu, Uttar Pradesh rehabilitated some convicts released. Out of 1,077 released, Punjab had
rehabilitated 411 prisoners. This is the only State which has provided rehabilitation for 38% of
the prisoners released. Out of released 21 3,718 prisoners throughout India, only 1,916 (0.89%)
were given financial assistance and 1,426 (0.66%) were rehabilitated. Analyzing this data we can
say that the increase in recidivism is definitely due to the lack of financial assistance and absence
of rehabilitation work.
18.9 Summary: Probation and parole have the same objective i.e. rehabilitation of offenders. In
both the techniques, skillful supervision of selected offenders is involved outside the prison. But
there is an important distinction between the two. In probation, the offender is not sent to jail
after being found guilty and the decision to grant probation is to be made by the court. In parole,
the convict is released after serving his sentence for some time and the release is not result of any
judicial decision. Both the techniques are used to rehabilitate the offender and offender is given a
chance to reform. In granting probation or parole, the duty of the probation officer, is to see that
an effective programme for the rehabilitation of the offender is prescribed and implemented and
the responses of the offender are watched. In case of positive response the probation officer has
to continue the good work but in case of negative response of a substantive degree reflected by
violation of probation or parole order, the agent or probation officer has to take suitable action
which may even extend to recommending the alternative prison term to the court. The true
challenge to the officer is not in his work as a policeman but it is in his capacity to make the
client adjust to the community.
18.10 Further readings:
Scull, A. (1977). Decarceration: Community treatment and the deviant - a radical view.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Qadri, S.M.A., 2005, Criminology, Eastern Book Company. Lucknow.
Q1: Write a detailed note on community corrections.
Q2: Differentiate between Probation and Parole.
Q3: Probation and parole are the two ways of rehabilitating the offender. Discuss.

Sociology of Crime

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociology of Crime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chairperson—Prof Madhurima Verma

Course leader- Prof. Madhurima Verma

2 Juvenile Delinquency Dr.Suchet

Classical and Positivist School of

5 Biological theories of Crime Prof. Madhurima

6 Psychological theories of Crime Prof. Madhurima

7 Sociological theories of Crime Prof. Madhurima

Violent Crimes-Homicide, Aggravated

9 Property crime Dr.Suchet &Prof.Madhurima

10 Crime against Moral and Political Order Prof. Madhurima

11 White collar Crimes Prof. Madhurima

12 Corporate Crimes Prof. Madhurima

13 Theories of Punishment Prof Madhurima&Dr.Navneet

14 Penology in India and Indian Penal code Dr.Mona Arora

18 Correctional Programme- Community based Prof Madhurima&Dr.Navneet

Vetter : Prof. Madhurima Verma

9. Sutherland, Edwin H & Donald R. Cressey (1968) Principles of Criminology,

2. Doongaji, Damayanti (1986) Crime and Punishment in Ancient Hindu Society,

Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

1.2 Nature of Deviance

1.3 Theorizing Deviance

1.4 Sociological Theories

After going through this lesson, you will be able to:

1.2 Nature of Deviance

4. Marshall B. Clinard Those situations in which behaviour is in a disapproved direction, and

Deviance may be positively sanctioned (rewarded), negatively sanctioned (punished), or

1.2.1 Characteristics of Deviance

2) Deviant Behaviour is different from Normal Behaviour Deviant behaviour is a social

4) Deviance is not a matter of the cost or consequences of a particular behavior, or the

1.2.2 Difference between Crime & Deviance

1.2.3 Dysfunctions of Deviance

1.2.4 Functions of Deviance

Self assessment questions

1. How deviance is relative?

2. Mention two dysfunctions of deviance?

3. Differentiate between crime and deviance?

1.3.1 Biological Theories

1.3.2 Psychological Theories

1.4 Sociological Theories

1.4.1 Anomie Theory (Emile Durkheim)

1.4.2 Anomie or Strain Theory (Robert Merton)

Merton has described FIVE situations

1.4.3 Control Theory

 Involvement in Conventional Achievement People are so much engaged in conventional

1.4.4 Differential Association Theory

1. Differential association varies in frequency, length, intensity and priority.

1.4.5 Labeling Theory

Stages by Which Person Is Transformed From Being Seen As Normal To Deviant

Primary & Secondary Deviance

1.4.6 Conflict Theory

1.4.7 Deviant Subcultures

Self assessment questions

Atavists: Humans possessed with ferocious criminal traits as that of apes.

Delinquency : Criminal activities of young people

1.7 Further Readings

1.8 Model question

Define Deviance. Explain its causes and different theories.

2.2 Theories of Juvenile Delinquency

2.3 Causes of Juvenile Delinquency

2.4 Extent of Juvenile Delinquency in India

2.5 Remedies of Juvenile Delinquency

2.10 Model Question

 understand the meaning and nature of juvenile delinquency