M.A.

, CRIMINOLOGY AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATION
First Year – Non-Semester

MCCJN - 15

PENOLOGY AND CORRECTIONAL

ADMINISTRATION

TAMIL NADU OPEN UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION
577, ANNA SALAI, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI – 15
JANUARY 2022
JANUARY 2022

Course Writer:

Dr.Anantharamakrishnan Senthivel ,M.Sc., PhD.,

Assistant Professor
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Administration
Tamil Nadu Open University
577, Anna Salai, Saidapet - 600015
Chennai ,Tamil Nadu.

© School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Administration

Tamil Nadu Open University

All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form without a written permission from Tamil Nadu
Open University 577, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.

www.tnou.ac.in
MCCJN – 15 – PENOLOGY AND CORRECTIONAL
ADMINISTRATION

Syllabus

BLOCK 1 Nature of Punishment

UNIT – 1 Define – Penology, punishment – Meaning, scope and

aims of punishment - Punishment in Ancient and
Medieval India and the World

UNIT – 2 Types of punishment – Objectives of punishment –

Various types of Sentencing – Treatment of Offenders

UNIT – 3 Punishment– Recent trends in punishment - Genesis –

Objectives – Need and significance of corrections –
Correctional theories

UNIT – 4 Principles, policies and procedures – Recent trends in

Correctional methods – Rehabilitation models

UNIT – 5 Correction in India: Role of Central and State

Governments – Prison System in India – Women
Prisons – open air Prisons

BLOCK 2 Theories and Legal Instruments

UNIT – 6 Objectives and theories of correction –Retributive,

Deterrence, Reformation – Primary deterrence and
Secondary deterrence

Unit – 7 Evolution of correctional philosophy – Medical model –

Rehabilitation model – Community correction –
Community Service Order

UNIT – 8 Correctional manuals and rules: Prisons Act, 1894 –

Transfer of Prisoners Act – Probation system in India.
UNIT – 9 Tamil Nadu Prison Manual – Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 – Parole – Borstal Schools.

UNIT – 10 Various Prison Reforms Committees and Commissions

– Effectiveness of sentencing – Death Penalty and
Deterrence

BLOCK 3 Correctional Institutions

UNIT – 11 Institutionalization: Meaning and purpose-evolution

and development of prison system in India

UNIT – 12 Classification system: Individualization of treatment,

meaning and significance – Adult institutions: Central
prisons and sub-jails

UNIT – 13 Juvenile institutions: Observation home, Children’s

home, Juvenile Justice Board, Child Welfare
Committees, Special home, Borstal school

UNIT – 14 Institutions for women – Women’s prison, Vigilance

home and Protective home – Rehabilitation programs
for women – Vocational Training

UNIT – 15 Open air prisons – Scope, History, Nature, Conditions,

Significance – Open Air Prisons in India – Half way
homes

BLOCK 4 Institutional Correctional Programmes

UNIT – 16 Boarding, lodging and medical care - Counselling for

convicts – Reintegration programs – One stop centres
in Tamil Nadu.

UNIT – 17 Programmes – Vocational training programmes –

Observation Homes and Special Homes – types of
Sentencing
UNIT – 18 Recreational programmes – Self-government and
other activities – healthcare, Educational Programs

UNIT – 19 Prisonization and sub-culture – Prison routine –

Culture-shock incarceration – segregation of Prisoners

UNIT – 20 U. N. Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of

Prisoners, 1955, Prison Adalat – Rights of Prisoners
and Rights of Women Prisoners

BLOCK 5 Community-based Corrections

UNIT – 21 Probation: Concept and scope – Historical

development in India – Probation of Offenders Act,
1958

UNIT – 22 Shock probation – Probation procedures: Pre-sentence

investigation report, supervision and revocation –
Parole: Provisions, rules and supervision

UNIT – 23 After-care: Meaning and scope – Halfway houses:

Organization and significance

UNIT – 24 Role of voluntary agencies in prevention of crime and

treatment of offenders – Role of NGO’s and Societies
in the prevention and development of released
convicts

UNIT – 25 Rehabilitation: Need, importance and services in India

– Pre-release and Premature release

BLOCK 6 Prison Industry

UNIT – 26 Definition, Concepts, Nature of Prison system in India

– Mulla committee Report on Prison reforms

UNIT – 27 Typology of Prisons in India – life sentencing – Rights

of Prisoners – Voting rights - Zero tolerance policing
UNIT – 28 Classification of prison labours, Prisoners - wages,
conditions - Rights of Prisoners; Alternative
approaches to Imprisonment & Community Based
Correction

UNIT – 29 Significance of Prison System - Discharged Prisoners’

Aid Society – After care and rehabilitation– Pre-release
and premature release

UNIT – 30 Corporal and Capital Punishment; Attitude on Pros and

Cons of Capital Punishment - Sentencing-Process and
Policies, Alternative Sentencing system

References for MCCJ 15 Penology and Correctional

Administration

1. Arrigo, B., & Milovanovic, D. (2010). Revolution in penology:

Rethinking the society of captives. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield.

2. Crow, I. (2001). The treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.

London: SAGE

3. Scott, D. (2008). Penology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

4. C Lerner, K., & Lerner, B. (2006). Crime & punishment:

Essential primary sources. Detroit, MI: Thomas Gale.

5. Miethe, T., & Lu, H. (2005). Punishment: A comparative

historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Chockalingam K. (1993) Issues in Probation in India, Madras

University Publications, Madras.

7. Mulla Committee Report on Prison Reforms, 1983, Govt of

India.
PENOLOGY AND CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATION

BLOCK 1 - NATURE OF PUNISHMENT

Meaning, aims and philosophy of punishment

In criminal law, Any pain, penalty, suffering, or confinement inflicted

upon a person by the authority of the law and the judgment and sentence of
a court, for some crime or offense committed by him, or for his omission
of a duty enjoined by law.

Punishment has five recognized purposes: deterrence, incapacitation,

rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution.

Specific and General Deterrence

Deterrence prevents future crime by frightening the defendant or

the public. The two types of deterrence are specific and general deterrence.
Specific deterrence applies to an individual defendant. When the
government punishes an individual defendant, he or she is theoretically
less likely to commit another crime because of fear of another similar or
worse punishment. General deterrence applies to the public at large. When
the public learns of an individual defendant’s punishment, the public is
theoretically less likely to commit a crime because of fear of the
punishment the defendant experienced. When the public learns, for
example, that an individual defendant was severely punished by a sentence
of life in prison or the death penalty, this knowledge can inspire a deep
fear of criminal prosecution.

Incapacitation

Incapacitation prevents future crime by removing the defendant from

society. Examples of incapacitation are incarceration, house arrest, or
execution pursuant to the death penalty.
Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation prevents future crime by altering a defendant’s behavior.

Examples of rehabilitation include educational and vocational programs,
treatment center placement, and counseling. The court can combine
rehabilitation with incarceration or with probation or parole. In some
states, for example, nonviolent drug offenders must participate in
rehabilitation in combination with probation, rather than submitting to
incarceration (Ariz. Rev. Stat., 2010).This lightens the load of jails and
prisons while lowering recidivism, which means reoffending.

Retribution

Retribution prevents future crime by removing the desire

for personal avengement (in the form of assault, battery, and criminal
homicide, for example) against the defendant. When victims or society
discover that the defendant has been adequately punished for a crime, they
achieve a certain satisfaction that our criminal procedure is working
effectively, which enhances faith in law enforcement and our government.

Restitution

Restitution prevents future crime by punishing the defendant financially.

Restitution is when the court orders the criminal defendant to pay the
victim for any harm and resembles a civil litigation damages award.
Restitution can be for physical injuries, loss of property or money, and
rarely, emotional distress. It can also be a fine that covers some of the
costs of the criminal prosecution and punishment.

Utilitarianism

1. Utilitarian Justification

a. Utilitarianism is the moral theory that holds that the rightness or

wrongness of an action is determined by the balance of good over
evil that is produced by that action. Philosophers have argued
over exactly how the resulting good and evil may be identified
and to whom the greatest good should belong. Jeremy Bentham
identified good with pleasure and evil with pain and held that the
greatest pleasure should belong to the greatest number of people.
John Stuart Mill, perhaps the most notable utilitarian, identified
good with happiness and evil with unhappiness and also held that
the greatest happiness should belong to the greatest number. This
is how utilitarianism is most often discussed in the literature, so
we will follow Mill in our discussion.

When attempting to determine whether a punishment is

justifiable, utilitarians will attempt to anticipate the likely
consequences of carrying out the punishment. If punishing an
offender would most likely produce the greatest balance of
happiness over unhappiness compared with the other available
options (not taking any action, publicly denouncing the offender,
etc.), then the punishment is justified. If another available option
would produce a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness,
then that option should be chosen and punishment is unjustified.

Clearly, crimes tend to produce unhappiness, so in seeking to

promote a state of affairs in which the balance of happiness over
unhappiness is maximized, a utilitarian will be highly concerned
with reducing crime. Traditionally, utilitarians have focused on
three ways in which punishment can reduce crime. First, the
threat of punishment can deter potential offenders. If an
individual is tempted to commit a certain crime, but he knows that
it is against the law and a punishment is attached to a conviction
for breaking that law, then, generally speaking, that potential
offender will be less likely to commit the crime. Second,
punishment can incapacitate offenders. If an offender is confined
for a certain period of time, then that offender will be less able to
harm others during that period of time. Third, punishment can
rehabilitate offenders. Rehabilitation involves making strides to
improve an offender’s character so that he will be less likely to re-
offend.
 Although utilitarians have traditionally focused on these three
ways in which punishment can reduce crime, there are other ways
in which a punishment can affect the balance of happiness over
unhappiness. For example, whether or not a given offender is
punished will affect how the society views the governmental
institution that is charged with responding to violations of the
law. The degree to which they believe this institution is
functioning justly will clearly affect their happiness. Utilitarians
are committed to taking into account every consequence of a
given punishment insofar as it affects the balance of happiness
over unhappiness.

b. Objection and Response

Perhaps the most common objection to the utilitarian justification

of punishment is that its proponent is committed to punishing
individuals in situations in which punishment would clearly be
morally wrong. H.J. McCloskey offers the following example:

Suppose a utilitarian were visiting an area in which there was

racial strife, and that, during his visit, a Negro rapes a white
woman, and that race riots occur as a result of the crime, white
mobs, with the connivance of the police, bashing and killing
Negroes, etc. Suppose too that our utilitarian is in the area of the
crime when it is committed such that his testimony would bring
about the conviction of a particular Negro. If he knows that a
quick arrest will stop the riots and lynchings, surely, as a
utilitarian, he must conclude that he has a duty to bear false
witness in order to bring about the punishment of an innocent
person.

A utilitarian is committed to endorsing the act that would be most

likely to produce the greatest balance of happiness over
unhappiness, and, in this situation, it appears that the act that
meets this criterion is bearing false witness against an innocent
person. But, so the argument goes, it cannot be morally
permissible, let alone morally mandatory, to perform an act that
leads directly to the punishment of an innocent person. Therefore,
since the utilitarian is committed to performing this clearly wrong
act, the utilitarian justification must be incorrect.

The standard utilitarian response to this argument demands that

we look more closely at the example. Once we do this, it
supposedly becomes clear that the utilitarian is not committed to
performing this clearly wrong act. In his reply to McCloskey’s
argument, T.L.S. Sprigge states that if faced with the decision
presented in the example, a “sensible utilitarian” will attach a
great deal of weight to the near-certain fact that framing an
innocent man would produce a great deal of misery for that man
and his family. This consideration would receive such weight
because “the prediction of misery… rests on well confirmed
generalizations”. Furthermore, the sensible utilitarian will not
attach much weight to the possibility that framing the man would
stop the riots. This is because this prediction “will be based on a
hunch about the character of the riots”. Since well confirmed
generalizations are more reliable than hunches, happiness is most
likely to be maximized when individuals give the vast majority of
the weight to such well confirmed generalizations when making
moral decisions. Therefore, since the relevant well confirmed
generalization tells us that at least a few people (the innocent man
and his family) would be made miserable by the false testimony,
the utilitarian would give much weight to this consideration and
choose not to bear false witness against an innocent man.

This type of response can in turn be challenged in various ways,

but perhaps the best way to challenge it is to point out that even if
it is true that the greatest balance of good over evil would not be
 promoted by punishing an innocent person in this situation, that is
not the reason why punishing an innocent person would be wrong.
It would be wrong because it would be unjust. The innocent man
did not rape the woman, so he does not deserve to be punished for
that crime. Because utilitarianism focuses solely on the balance of
happiness over unhappiness that is produced by various actions, it
is unable to take into account important factors such as justice and
desert. If justice and desert cannot be incorporated into the theory,
then the punishment of innocents cannot be ruled out as unjust, so
a prohibition against it will have to be dependent upon the
likelihood of various consequences. This strikes many theorists as
problematic.

2. Retributivism

a. Retributive Justification

Regarding retributive theories, C.L. Ten states that, “There is no

complete agreement about what sorts of theories are retributive
except that all such theories try to establish an essential link
between punishment and moral wrongdoing”. He is surely right
about this, so, therefore, it is difficult to give a general account of
retributive justification. However, it is possible to state certain
features that characterize retributive theories generally. Concepts
of desert and justice occupy a central place in most retributive
theories: in accordance with the demands of justice, wrongdoers
are thought to deserve to suffer, so punishment is justified on the
grounds that it gives to wrongdoers what they deserve. It is
instructive to look at the form that a particular retributive theory
can take, so we will examine the views of Immanuel Kant.

Kant invokes what he refers to as the “principle of equality” in his

discussion of punishment. If this principle is obeyed, then “the
pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to the
one side than the other”. If a wrongful act is committed, then the
person who has committed it has upset the balance of the scale of
justice. He has inflicted suffering on another, and therefore
rendered himself deserving of suffering. So in order to balance the
scale of justice, it is necessary to inflict the deserved suffering on
him. But it is not permissible to just inflict any type of suffering.
Kant states that the act that the person has performed “is to be
regarded as perpetrated on himself”. This he refers to as the
“principle of retaliation”. Perhaps the most straightforward
application of this principle demands that murderers receive the
penalty of death. So, for Kant, the justification of punishment is
derived from the principle of retaliation, which is grounded in the
principle of equality.

The concepts of desert and justice play a central role in Kant’s

theory, and they are applied in a way that rules out the possibility
of justifying the punishment of innocents. Since an innocent
person does not deserve to be punished, a Kantian is not
committed to punishing an innocent person, and since it seems to
some that utilitarians are committed to punishing innocents (or
participating in the punishment of innocents) in certain
circumstances, Kant’s theory may seem to be superior in this
respect. Recall that the failure to take desert and justice into
consideration is thought by many to be a major problem with
utilitarian theory. However, while Kantian theory may seem
superior because it takes desert and justice into account, an
influential criticism of the theory challenges the idea that
punishment can be justified on the grounds of justice and desert
without requiring that the balance of happiness over unhappiness
be taken into account.
b. Objection and Response

Gertrude Ezorsky argues that we should test the Kantian position

and other retributive positions that resemble it “by imagining a
world in which punishing criminals has no further effects worth
achieving” (xviii). In this world, punishment does not deter or
rehabilitate. For whatever reason, incapacitation is impossible. In
addition, victims receive no satisfaction from the punishment of
those who have harmed them. In this world, a Kantian would be
committed to the position that punishments still ought to be
inflicted upon wrongdoers. Furthermore, the individuals that
populated this world would be morally obligated to punish
wrongdoers. If they failed to punish wrongdoers, they would be
failing to abide by the dictates of justice. But surely it is quite odd
to hold that these individuals would be morally obligated to
punish when doing so would not produce any positive effects for
anyone. According to Ezorsky, this terribly odd consequence
suggests that the Kantian theory is problematic.

Kant would not agree that this consequence of his theory is odd.
According to Kant, “if justice and righteousness perish, human
life would no longer have any value in the world”. So, even the
inhabitants of our imaginary world are obliged to ensure that
“every one may realize the desert of his deeds”. If they do not live
up to this obligation, then they will be failing to abide by the
dictates of justice, and their lives will be of lesser value. Of
course, critics of the Kantian theory are unlikely to be persuaded
by this response. Indeed, it is appropriate to be highly skeptical of
a conception of justice that holds that justice can be promoted
without anyone’s welfare being promoted.

As stated earlier, many of the theories that are referred to as

“retributive” vary significantly from one another. However, as the
 Kantian theory possesses many central features that other
retributive theories possess, criticisms similar to Ezorsky’s have
been leveled against many of them. Predictably, the responses to
these criticisms vary depending on the particular theory.

3. Compromise Theories

Many theorists have attempted to take features of utilitarianism and

retributivism and combine them into a theory that retains the strengths
of both while overcoming their weaknesses. The impetus for
attempting to develop this sort of theory is clear: the idea that
punishment should promote good consequences, such as the reduction
of crime, surely seems attractive. However, the idea that it would be
justified to punish an innocent in any circumstance where such
punishment would be likely to promote the greatest balance of
happiness over unhappiness surely seems wrong. Likewise, the idea
that justice and the desert of the offender should play a central role in
a justification of punishment is attractive, while being committed to
punishing an offender even when nobody’s welfare would be
promoted as a result seems to be problematic. So, each type of theory
seems to have positive and negative aspects. But how to combine
these seemingly opposed theories and produce a better one? Is a
compromise between them really possible? In an attempt to explore
this possibility, we will examine the theory of H.L.A. Hart.

a. Hart’s Theory According to Hart, in order to clarify our

thinking on the subject of punishment,

What is needed is the realization that different principles… are

relevant at different points in any morally acceptable account of
punishment. What we should look for are answers to a number of
different questions such as: What justifies the general practice of
punishment? To whom may punishment be applied?
The failure to separate these questions from one another and
consider that they might be answered by appealing to different
principles has prevented many previous theorists from generating
an acceptable account of punishment. Hart states that the first
question (“What justifies the general practice of punishment?”) is
a question of “General Justifying Aim” and ought to be answered
by citing utilitarian concerns. The second (“To whom may
punishment be applied?”) is a question of “Distribution” and
ought to be answered by citing retributive concerns. So, the
general practice is to be justified by citing the social
consequences of punishment, the main social consequence being
the reduction of crime, but we ought not be permitted to punish
whenever inflicting a punishment is likely to reduce crime. In
other words, we may not apply punishment indiscriminately. We
may only punish “an offender for an offense”. With few
exceptions, the individual upon whom punishment is inflicted
must have committed an offense, and the punishment must be
attached to that offense.

Hart’s theory attempts to avoid what may have appeared to be an

impasse blocking the construction of an acceptable theory of
punishment. Utilitarian concerns play a major role in his theory:
the practice of punishment must promote the reduction of crime,
or else it is not justifiable. But retributive concerns also play a
major role: the range of acceptable practices that can be engaged
in by those concerned with reducing crime is to be constrained by
a retributive principle allowing only the punishment of an
offender for an offense. Hart’s theory, at the very least, represents
a plausible attempt at a “compromise” between those inclined
towards utilitarianism and those inclined towards retributivism.

Hart does admit that on certain occasions the principle stating that
we may only punish an offender for an offense (referred to as the
 principle of “retribution in Distribution”) may be overridden by
utilitarian concerns. When the utilitarian case for punishing an
innocent person is particularly compelling, it may be good for us
to do so, but “we should do so with the sense of sacrificing an
important principle”. Many people will agree with Hart that it
may be necessary to punish an innocent person in extreme cases,
and it is thought to be an advantage of his theory that it captures
the sense that, in these cases, an important principle is being
overridden.

b. Objection and Response

This overriding process, however, cannot work in the opposite

direction. In Hart’s theory, some social good must be promoted or
some social evil must be reduced in order for punishment to be
justified. Because of this, it is unjustifiable to punish a person
who seems to deserve punishment unless some utilitarian aim is
being furthered. Imagine the most despicable character you can
think of, a mass-murderer perhaps. The justifiability of punishing
a person guilty of such crimes is beholden to the social
consequences of the punishment. That a depraved character would
suffer for his wrongdoing is not enough. So, for Hart,
considerations of desert cannot override utilitarian considerations
in this way. Some theorists find this consequence of his theory
unacceptable. Ten argues that, “it would be unfair to punish an
offender for a lesser offense and yet not punish another offender
for a more serious offense”. If we are behaving in accordance
with Hart’s theory, we may, on occasion, have to avoid punishing
serious offenders while continuing to punish less serious
offenders for utilitarian reasons. Since doing so would be unfair,
it seems that Hart’s theory may be seriously flawed.
 In order to assess Ten’s criticism, it is important to ask the
following question: If we were to avoid punishing the more
serious offender, to whom would we be being unfair? In an effort
to answer this question, we must consider whether the offender
who has committed the lesser crime has grounds for complaint if
the more serious offender is not punished. By stipulation, the
lesser offender committed the crime and cannot thereby claim a
violation of justice on those grounds. Is the justification of his
punishment contingent upon the punishment of others? Arguably
not: The punishment of the lesser offender is justified regardless
of whoever else is punished. He may bemoan his bad luck and
wish that his punishment were not likely to further any utilitarian
aims so that he may avoid it, but he cannot rightly accuse society
of a violation of justice for failing to punish others when he does
in fact deserve the punishment that is being inflicted upon him.
The attractiveness of Ten’s argument is derived from the fact that
its conclusion fits with our intuitions regarding the idea that some
people just deserve to suffer no matter what. Perhaps we ought to
reexamine that intuition and consider that it may be rooted in an
urge to revenge, not a concern for justice.

4. Amount of Punishment

The belief that, in most cases, the amount of punishment should vary
directly with the seriousness of the offense is widely accepted.
However, utilitarians and retributivists have different ways of arriving
at this general conclusion.

a. Utilitarians on Amount

Bentham, a utilitarian, states that, “The greater the mischief of the

offence, the greater is the expense, which it may be worth while
to be at, in the way of punishment”. Crime and punishment both
tend to cause unhappiness. Recall that utilitarianism is solely
 concerned with the balance of happiness over unhappiness
produced by an action. When attempting to determine the amount
of punishment that ought to be permitted for a given offense, it is
necessary to weigh the unhappiness that would be caused by the
offense against the unhappiness caused by various punishments.
The greater the unhappiness caused by a given offense, the greater
the amount of punishment that may be inflicted for that offense in
order to reduce its occurrence before the unhappiness caused by
the punishment outweighs the unhappiness caused by the offense.

So, utilitarians would often be committed to abiding by the rule

that the amount of punishment should vary directly with the
seriousness of the offense. However, it seems that there are cases
in which they would be committed to violating this rule. Critics
argue that utilitarians would sometimes be committed to inflicting
a severe punishment for a relatively minor offense. Ten asks us to
imagine a society in which there are many petty thefts and thieves
are very difficult to catch. Since there are many thefts, the total
amount of unhappiness caused by them is great. Imagine that one
thief is caught and the authorities are deciding how severely to
punish him. If these authorities were utilitarians, they would be
committed to giving him a very severe sentence, 10 years
perhaps, if this were the only way to deter a significant number of
petty thieves. But surely making an example of the one thief who
was unlucky or unskilled enough to be caught is unjust. Since
utilitarians are sometimes committed to inflicting such harsh
punishments for relatively minor offenses, their approach must be
inadequate.

b. Retributivists on Amount

Retributivists argue that more serious offenses should be punished

more severely because offenders who commit more serious
crimes deserve harsher punishment than those who commit less
serious crimes. Given our previous discussion of retributivism, it
should not come as a surprise that the concept of desert plays a
central role here. According to many classic versions of
retributivism, including Kant’s, the deserved punishment is
determined by invoking the lex talionis. The old adage, “An eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” is derived from the lex talionis,
which “requires imposing a harm on a criminal identical to the
one he imposed on his victim” (Shafer-Landau). Those who argue
that murderers ought to be put to death have often invoked this
principle, but it is rarely invoked when attempting to determine
the proper punishment for other crimes. Its lack of popularity can
be explained by noting a couple of objections. First, it is difficult
to apply to many offenses, and it seems to be outright inapplicable
to some. How should we punish the counterfeiter, the hijacker, or
the childless kidnapper? Applying the lex talionis to these crimes
is, at the very least, problematic. Second, there are many cases in
which it would require that we punish offenders by performing
actions that ought not to be carried out by any government. Surely
we should not rape rapists! For these and other reasons, except
when the topic at hand is capital punishment, appeals to the lex
talionis in the contemporary literature are rare.

Many contemporary retributivists hold that the principle of

proportionality should be used in order to determine the amount
of punishment to be meted out in particular cases. This principle
states that, “the amount of punishment should be proportionate to
the moral seriousness or moral gravity of offenses…”. Different
versions of the proportionality principle call for different ways of
establishing how severe a punishment must be in order to meet
the demands set by the principle. Must it merely be the case that
there be a direct relationship between the amount of punishment
 and the seriousness of the offense, or must offenders suffer the
same amount as their victim(s) in order for the demands of the
principle to be met? Retributivists are not in complete agreement
on how to answer this question.

While retributivists seem to have an easier time ensuring that

there be a direct relationship between the amount of punishment
and the seriousness of the offense, their position is subject to
criticism. Because they are committed to inflicting the deserved
punishment, they must do so even when a lesser punishment
would produce the same social effects. Clearly, this criticism runs
parallel to the objection to retributivism discussed in section 2: if
the retributivist is committed to inflicting the deserved
punishment regardless of the social effects, then it seems that he
is committed to inflicting gratuitous pain on an offender. Of
course, some resist the idea that inflicting suffering in such a case
would be gratuitous, which is why this debate continues. In any
case, the perceived shortcomings of both the utilitarian and
retributive approaches have led theorists to attempt to develop
approaches that combine elements of both. For reasons similar to
those cited in support of the aforementioned “compromise”
theories, it seems that these approaches are the most promising.

5. Capital Punishment

Capital punishment involves the deliberate killing of a supposed or

actual offender for an offense. Throughout history and across different
societies, criminals have been executed for a variety of offenses, but
much of the literature is devoted to examining whether those
convicted of murder ought to be executed, and this discussion will be
similarly focused.

A combination of utilitarian and retributive considerations are usually

invoked in an effort to justify the execution of murderers. The
centerpiece of most arguments in favor of capital punishment is
retributive: Murderers deserve to be put to death. This is usually
argued for along Kantian lines: By deliberately causing an innocent
person’s death, the murderer has rendered himself deserving of death.
Utilitarian considerations generally play a large role as well.
Proponents argue that the threat of capital punishment can deter
potential murderers. Since many human beings’ greatest fear is death,
the intuitive plausibility of this claim is clear. In addition, proponents
point to the fact that capital punishment is the ultimate incapacitation.
Clearly, if a murderer is dead, then he can never harm anyone again.

Opponents of capital punishment challenge proponents on each of

these points. Albert Camus denies that murder and capital punishment
are equivalent to one another:

But what is capital punishment if not the most premeditated of

murders, to which no criminal act, no matter how calculated, can be
compared? If there were to be a real equivalence, the death penalty
would have to be pronounced upon a criminal who had forewarned his
victim of the very moment he would put him to a horrible death, and
who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his own discretion
for a period of months. It is not in private life that one meets such
monsters.

This argument and others that resemble it are often put forth in an
attempt to counter the retributive argument. Also, any criminal justice
system that executes convicted criminals runs the risk of executing
some individuals who do not deserve to be executed: the wrongfully
convicted. Some argue that a fallible criminal justice system ought not
to impose a penalty that removes the possibility of mistakes being
rectified. The utilitarian arguments have also come under attack. Some
argue that the proponents of capital punishment have overstated its
deterrent value, and it has been argued that it may even incite some
 people to commit murder. Regarding incapacitation, it has been
argued that the danger involved in failing to execute murderers has
been similarly overstated.

Punishment in Ancient and Medieval India and the World

Ancient India was not a safe place to live. Many groups of thieves existed
already at the time of the Buddha( 6°century BC). They were bandits from
generation to generation, robbing and killing their victims like the Thugs
did later. These professional bandit caste, but not only them, constituted an
important problem : punishment of crimes and offences was then harsh.

Written in the 4°century BC by Kautilya, minister of the king Candragupta

Maurya, the “Arthashastra” is a treatise on the art of ruling and one of the
main indian book ever written. It recommends : cutting off the right hand
for pickpocketing or theft; cutting off the nose for theft; cutting off one
hand for false dice player; cutting off the nose and ears for abetting in theft
and adultery; chopping off one hand and leg for kicking preceptors and
using royal coaches; blinding by poisonous ointments for sudras
pretending to be brahmins or for slandering the king; chopping off one
hand or foot for freeing culprits, forgery or sale of human flesh; cutting off
the tongue for slandering preceptors, parents and the king and for defiling
a brahmin’s kitchen. There were also different forms of death : death with
torture for murder in a quarrel; death by impaling for theft of royal
animals; death by burning hands and skin for treason; death by drowning
for breaching dams or reservoirs, for poisoning or for women who
administered poison; death by tearing off the limbs of criminals, for
women who administered poison or set fire to houses; death by burning for
incendiarism. There were also offences for which the culprit was killed
without any torture being applied. Moreover, reduction to slavery was
inflicted on men and women in cases of adultery.
In practice, many mutilations and death penalties (except those due to
treason) were reduced to fines which resulted in a considerable inflow to
the royal coffers. Except for treason, brahmins (the highest class in India
already) were immune from the death penalty. Being privileged, brahmin
offenders were usually slightly condemned. In case of theft, the figure of a
dog (In traditional India, dogs are misconstrued, they considered as
impure.) was branded on their forehead; in case of murder, the figure of a
human trunk;…And in some cases, the alternative was to banish the
brahmin from the kingdom.

The History of Medieval Crime and punishment is filled with harsh

punishments. The punishments were harsh because the overall system was
influenced by the Church and such punishments were given in order to
create fear in the hearts of the people and to keep them from committing
crimes. Punishments were mostly given through trials by ordeal in which
the innocent and guilty both had to go through tough ordeals. In the 13th
century AD trial by ordeal was replaced by trial by jury.

Different types of punishments were awarded for different types of crimes.

For theft the punishment was extra work and fines or the hands of the
guilty were cut off. Murderers were given the death penalty by hanging or
beheading. Flogging was the punishment for people not working hard
enough whereas the people accused of cheating and drunkenness were put
in the stocks or pillory. The Stocks held peoples ankles whereas the pillory
held their heads and wrists. The punishment for women’s gossip was the
scold’s bridle. The punishment of high treason was very severe as the
culprit was hung and cut down while he was still alive. Then he was
beheaded and body hacked into four quarters, which were then sent to
different cities throughout the realm and were put on public display. The
punishment for heresy was banishment if the culprit repented and was
burnt at the stake if did not repent. The punishment for witchcraft was
strangulation whereas in case of serious offenses witches were also burned
at stake.
Manorial Courts & Trial by Jury

The Manorial Court was the lowest court of law during the medieval
period. All crimes apart from serious crimes were dealt by the manorial
court. A manorial court was held multiple times during a year and it was
mandatory for all the villagers to attend or else they had to pay a fine. All
men were divided into the groups of ten known as the tithing. Each tithing
was given the responsibility to make sure that no member of their group
committed a crime and if one did then other members had to make sure to
bring him to the court. The person in charge of the court was Lord’s
Steward. There was a jury that consisted of twelve men chosen by the
villagers. It was the jury’s responsibility to collect evidence in order to
decide whether the accused was guilty or not. And if accused was found
guilty the jury had to decide and they then decided the punishment as well.

The King’s Court – Trial by Ordeal

The King’s court dealt with the serious crimes such as assault, murder and
treason as these crimes were considered as crimes against the King. The
King’s court met several times in a year and had a prominent role in the
medieval crimes and punishment system. The accused had to face the trial
by ordeal in which their innocence or guilt was judged by subjecting them
to unpleasant ordeals. These ordeals were ordeals by fire, The ordeal by
water and The ordeal by Combat.

Medieval Punishment – Ordeal by Fire

During the ordeal by fire the accused had to walk a distance of around 9
feet either by holding a red hot iron or over a red hot plough share. After
that, their wounds were bandaged and they were asked to appear before the
court after three days. After three days their bandages were opened. In
cases where healing of wounds had started the accused were declared
innocent, whereas in cases where there were no signs of improvement the
accused were pronounced guilty and were punished according to their
crime. It was thought that God intervened in order to save the innocent and
with God’s powers the healing of wounds started to take place.
Medieval Punishment – Ordeal by Water

In the ordeal by water, there were two kinds of ordeals. One was an ordeal
by cold water, whereas the other was an ordeal by hot water. In the ordeal
by cold water, hands and feet of the accused were tied together and they
were thrown into the water. If they started floating, it meant that they were
innocent but if they sank they were declared guilty. During ordeal by hot
water the accused had to dip their hands in a kettle with boiling water and
had to pick a stone from depth. After three days their wounds were judged.
In case of healing signs they were considered innocent anything else
mean’t they were guilty.

Medieval Punishment – Ordeal by Combat

In case of ordeal by combat the two parties in dispute had to fight. It was
mostly done when one party was accused by the other, but there were no
witnesses or confessions. The winner of the fight was declared innocent. It
was one of the most common methods employed by the judiciary during
the middle ages.

Types of Punishments according to IPC

Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes five kinds of

punishments.

The types of punishment in India may be classified into five categories

1. Imprisonment: Imprisonment can be simple or rigorous. Simple

Imprisonment is sentenced for minor offences which are not
considered serious. The prisoner lives in the prison for the given
period of sentence without any further requirement. Whereas in the
case of Rigorous Imprisonment, the prisoner has to indulge in physical
labour while serving his time in prison. In certain cases a prisoner may
be sentenced with Solitary Confinement, where the prisoner is forced
to live alone and all the connections with the outer world is cut off.
However it is subject to certain rules under the constitution.
 Monetary Punishment

Monetary punishment can be imposed in the form of fine or forfeiture

of property.

2. Fine is either the only punishment or is given along with the

imprisonment. The fine so deposited goes to the govt exchequer,
though with reform conditions it can also be given to the victim and
his family. The amount of fine varies with offences. Section 63 says
that where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the
amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall
not be excessive. Sentence for non-payment of fine is also dealt with
in IPC[Sec.64].

3. In case of Forfieture, the offender’s property is forfeited by the

government as a punishment for the offence committed by him.
Forfeiture of property is not very common in IPC. Section 61 which
specified sentence of forfeiture of property has been repealed by
Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921. In the present IPC three
sections viz 126, 127 and 129 describes forfeiture of property.

4. Death Penalty

It is the most grave penalty imposed by IPC. Many sections still

prescribe the punishment of death. Some of them are as follows:

 Offence under Section 194 IPC where a person gives false

evidence with intention to cause any person to be convicted of
capital punishment and if an innocent person is convicted and
executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who
gives such false evidence shall be punished with death or life
imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment and fine.

 Offence of murder for which punishment of death or

imprisonment of life is prescribed under Section 302.
  Offence of murder committed by life convict as described in
Section 303. This section has been held unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab[AIR 1983 SC 473].
The peculiarity of this Section is that punishment of death only is
provided. No other alternative punishment is seen provided.

 Offence of abetting suicide of child or insane person as mentioned

in Section 305 IPC where death is a punishment with other
alternative punishments.

 In Section 307 when a life convict attempts to murder and hurt is

caused Death Sentence may be imposed.

 Kidnapping for ransom as described under Section 364A may be

met with punishment of Death along with other alternative
punishments.

 If any one of five or more person s who are conjointly committing

dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of
those persons shall be punished with death along with other
alternative punishments.

However, In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[AIR 1980 SC 898]

hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that death sentence is to be given
only in rarest of rare cases.

5. Life Imprisonment

Living behind the bars are sometimes far more painful than death
sentence. It is the most popular type of sentence after death penalty. In
most serious offences this type of punishment is prescribed. Wherever
death penalty is prescribed, life imprisonment also finds a place as an
alternative punishment. As there is hue and cry regarding imposing of
death penalty, in appropriate cases Courts impose life imprisonment as
a safe method. Before 1955, the words “transportation for life” was
used. The Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1955 (Act
No. 26 of 1955) substituted the words “Imprisonment for life” in place
of “transportation for life”.
 The general public thinks that imprisonment for life means only 14
years imprisonment, and the convict shall be released as soon as the
14 years period is lapsed. It is wrong presumption.

Actually, the punishment under the Imprisonment for Life means

imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted
person’s natural life. During the British Rule, the convicts under
“transportation for life” was used to be deported to the Andamans and
other Colonies and were taken for ever from the society of all who
were acquainted with him.

After independence, such system was stopped. Now the convicts

under imprisonment for life are imprisoned in the Prisons of the States
concerned. The life convict is not entitled to automatic release on
completion of fourteen years’ imprisonment, unless on special
occasions, the Government may pass an order considering the good
behaviour and conduct of the convict remitting the balance of
imprisonment for life

Objectives of Punishment:

In ancient times, the sole purpose of punishment was retribution. However,

in more modern societies the objectives of punishment include deterrence,
retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation and reparation.

Deterrence

Deterrence can be divided into general and specific deterrence. General

deterrence is the use of punishment to discourage others who may be so-
inclined from committing any offense. Those who witness the punishment
meted out to an offender will likely think twice before attempting to
commit such an offense. Specific deterrence is used to prevent the offender
from committing any further offense.
Retribution

Retribution as an objective of punishment stems from the old belief of an

“an eye for an eye.” This objective of punishment aims to make offenders
suffer for their crimes. The root of this objective is the belief that an
offender must suffer for an offense, especially if it is a serious or truly
heinous one. Capital punishment is a retributive punishment. A person
who intentionally takes the life of another person is expected to pay for
that offense with his own life.

Incarceration And Rehabilitation

Incarceration as an objective of punishment seeks to remove the offender

from the society for the good of the society. As such, a rapist is
incarcerated to protect other members of the society from such a person
and to give the offender time to pay his debt to the society. Rehabilitation
as an objective of punishment seeks to reform offenders by helping them
conform to the standard of society. Rehabilitative criminal justice tools are
parole, probation and work release.

Reparation

Reparation means that the offender must make restitution to the victim as
part of the punishment and as part of the condition for reintegration into
the society. For instance, anyone who embezzles the money of another
would be required to compensate the victims by returning all or part of the
stolen funds. This may include selling any property he has, to raise the
funds. Reparation may be combined with incarceration or rehabilitation.

Sentencing: Principles, policies and procedures

Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 sets out the only purposes of
sentencing an adult in Victoria. These purposes are:

 Just punishment – to punish the offender to an extent and in a way

that is just in all the circumstances
 Deterrence – to deter the offender (specific deterrence) or other
people (general deterrence) from committing offences of the same
or a similar character

 Rehabilitation – to establish conditions that the court considers

will enable the offender’s rehabilitation

 Denunciation – to denounce, condemn, or censure the type of

conduct engaged in by the offender

 Community protection – to protect the community from the

offender

 A combination of two or more of these purposes.

 For young offenders, rehabilitation is the principal consideration

in sentencing. Section 362(1) of the Children, Youth and Families
Act 2005 outlines the considerations that must be taken into
account when sentencing a young offender:

 The need to strengthen and preserve the relationship between the

child and the child’s family

 The desirability of allowing the child to live at home

 The desirability of allowing the education, training, or

employment of the child to continue without interruption or
disturbance

 The need to minimise the stigma to the child resulting from a

court determination

 The suitability of the sentence to the child

 If appropriate, ensuring the child is aware of the need to take

responsibility for any action that is against the law

 If appropriate, the need to protect the community, or any person,

from the violent or other wrongful acts of the child.
 Sentencing Factors

Section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991 sets out the factors that
must be taken into account when sentencing an adult in
Victoria. These factors include:

 The maximum penalty for the offence

 Current sentencing practices

 The nature and gravity of the offence

 The offender’s culpability (blameworthiness), that is, the degree

to which they should be held responsible for the offence

 Whether the crime was motivated by hatred or prejudice

 The impact of the offence on any victim of the offence

 The personal circumstances of any victim of the offence

 Any injury, loss, or damage resulting directly from the offence

 Whether the offender pleaded guilty to the offence

 The offender’s previous character

 The presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.

When weighing up the nature and gravity of the offence, the

considerations a judge or magistrate might take into account include:

 The offender’s intention

 The consequences of the offence

 The use of weapons

 Any breach of trust

 The offender’s history of offending

 The offender’s response to previous court orders

 Alcohol or drug addiction.

Aggravating factors increase the seriousness of the offence or the
offender's culpability. Mitigating factors reduce the seriousness of the
offence or the offender’s culpability.

The law allows courts to reduce a sentence if a person pleads guilty. If the
court gives a discount for a plea of guilty, the judge or magistrate must
state what the sentence would have been without the guilty plea.

Procedures:

After a person is found guilty of, or pleads guilty to, an offence, a

sentencing judge or magistrate will take a number of considerations into
account when deciding a sentence.

In Victoria, the approach taken to sentencing is known as instinctive

synthesis. A judge will identify all the factors that are relevant to the
sentence, consider the significance of each factor, and make a decision
about the appropriate sentence. Only at the end of the process does the
judge determine the sentence.

Sentencing purposes and factors are weighed up according to their

relevance to the circumstances of the offender and the offence. No one
purpose or factor has a predetermined value. The judge balances (or
synthesises) the purposes and factors in order to determine the most
appropriate sentence.

This is a two-stage process.

(a) The court must decide which type of sentence to pass: (i) a custodial
sentence, (ii) a community sentence, (iii) a fine, or (iv) a discharge.
Other sentences may also be available depending on the type of
offence committed or the age of the defendant. Some guidance has
been provided on deciding the type of sentence by the PCCSA 2000:

A court may not pass a custodial sentence unless the offence(s) was so
serious that only such a sentence can be justified; or if a violent or
 sexual offence, that only custody would protect the public from
serious harm from him: s79(2).

A court may not pass a community sentence unless the offence(s) was
serious enough to warrant such a sentence; and it is suitable for the
offender: s35.

(b) The court must then decide the tariff, ie how much?

The Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines give starting points for

offences which magistrates deal with regularly in adult courts. They
list the kind of aggravating and mitigating factors which might make
either a more or less severe sentence appropriate in an individual case.

The Court of Appeal provides sentencing guidelines for judges in the

Crown Court. For example, guidelines were given for the offence of
rape in R v Billam (1986) 82 Cr App R 347. The Sentencing Advisory
Panel, which began work in July 1999, provides objective advice and
information to the Court of Appeal when it formulates or revises
sentencing guidelines.

Otherwise, some general guidance has been provided by statute:

A custodial sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness of

the offence(s); or if a violent or sexual offence, for such longer term as
is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the offender:
s80(2).

When imposing a custodial sentence for a sexual or violent offence, if

the court believes that if the offender were to be released on licence
and the licence period would not be adequate to prevent re-offending
and securing his rehabilitation, the court may pass an extended
sentence of ten or five years, respectively. During this "extension
period" the offender will be subject to a licence: s85.
 Community sentences must be suitable for the offender and the
restrictions on liberty placed by a community sentence must be
commensurate with the seriousness of the offence(s): s35(3).

Before fixing the amount of a fine to be imposed on an offender, the

court must inquire into his financial circumstances: s128.

There may be a reduction in sentence for guilty pleas, under s152:

The court will take into account the stage in the proceedings at which
the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty and the
circumstances in which this indication was given. If as a result, the
court imposes a punishment which is less severe than it would
otherwise have imposed, it must state in open court that it has done so.

Recent approaches to punishment:

With a sharp increase in prison inmates and costs over the past decade, we
now spend 9 percent of state government’s General Fund housing 23,000
prison inmates, which is more than we invest in educating approximately
220,000 college students. With declining revenues and an ongoing budget
crisis, that imbalance is becoming more and more pronounced.

Ritter, who spent 25 years as a criminal prosecutor, recently introduced a

two-year pilot program that will advance his anti-recidivism initiatives and
save taxpayers nearly $20 million this fiscal year. This is a responsible
plan, one that has the support of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of
Police. In the face of overheated political rhetoric, it’s important to
separate fact from fiction.

This plan will:

 Accelerate the transition off of parole for 2,600 offenders who

have met their parole goals and completed at least half of their
parole term.
  Reinvest savings from this transition into front-loaded, enhanced
services and supervision for new parolees.

 Accelerate the transition from prison to parole for 3,500 eligible

offenders who would leave prison within six months anyway.

This is not a California plan, where the prison population is being reduced
by 27,300 inmates, or an Illinois plan, where 1,000 prison jobs are being
cut.

This is a carefully crafted, moderate Colorado plan. It is based in evidence

and research. It is strategic and grounded in recommendations from the
nonpartisan Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, and it
fully engages the Parole Board in the decision-making process. Offenders
who are likely to re-offend are likely to go nowhere. They will continue
serving their sentences.

According to the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance

Project, Arizona, Maryland, Nevada and Pennsylvania are following a
similar strategy. Maryland’s results are particularly impressive. Colorado
should be on this list.

Under the Colorado plan, eligible and qualifying offenders will be

returning to our community at some point anyway. It is far better policy to
provide for a marginally earlier release for select offenders than it is to
perpetuate a business-as-usual system that simply is not sustainable.

Prison, corrections and parole is a risky business. There are no guarantees

when predicting future behavior, no guarantees that an offender will not
wind up back behind bars. But there is research, evidence and data that
show the risk can be reduced, that offenders can be returned to society and
their families to lead productive, hard-working lives.

The members of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile

Justice have been doing their homework. The governor’s new approaches
are consistent with what members of the commission have been discussing
in public meetings for almost two years.
It is time for us to approach crime and punishment with smarter, more
innovative and modern policies.

Law Commission suggested in its 262nd report for abolition of death

penalty. It has called for its abolition for all crimes except terrorismrelated
offences and “waging war” against India. The “rarest of rare” doctrine
adopted by the Supreme Court in awarding the death penalty is
constitutionally unsustainable. In stark contrast with its previous
recommendations: In 1962, the commission, in its 35th report, said: “To
allow such persons (convicts awarded capital punishment) to live would be
like leaving wolves alive in a civilized country.” Not for immediate
action, but meant to start a dialogue with the legislature to move towards
abolition. Recommendations “Retribution has no constitutional value in a
democratic country. In India, even an accused is protected under the
Constitution and it is the court’s duty to shield and protect the same,” the
report said. More recently, a 2014 ruling of the Supreme Court has
clarified that “retribution has no constitutional value” in India. India has
ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
requires parties to abolish the death penalty. “When the International
Criminal Court (ICC), for offences like genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity, cannot award the death penalty, we have to ask
ourselves if we still want to continue with it,” Shah said. India is not a
signatory to the Rome statute that governs the ICC.

Application of any single theory may not render complete justice. The
aforesaid theories are not mutually exclusive. Hence judicious
combination of theories is the latest approach.
BLOCK 2 - THEORIES AND LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

HISTORY OF CORRECTIONS, PUNISHMENT, PREVENTION

OR REHABILITATION.

A terrible stinking dark and dismal place situated underground into which
no daylight can come. It was paved with stone; the prisoners had no beds
and lay on the pavement and whereby they endured great misery and
hardship.

Inmate at Newgate Prison, London (1724)

Public views of punishment for crimes have changed over the centuries.
History has its clement and its stormy seasons, and during times of war,
famine, and disorder, gains made in peace and plenty are sometimes lost.
Yet generally over time most societies have moved from the extraction of
personal or family justice—vengeful acts such as blood feuds or the
practice of "an eye for an eye" toward formal systems based on written
codes and orderly process. Jails and prisons have changed from being
holding places where prisoners awaited deportation, maiming, whippings,
beatings, or execution. Confinement itself has become the punishment. In
the United States today, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court,
punishment has at least four justifications: deterrence, societal retribution,
rehabilitation, and incapacitation—the last category intended to protect
society by permanently incarcerating those who cannot be reformed.

ANCIENT TIMES

Many ancient cultures allowed the victim or a member of the victim's

family to deliver justice. The offender often fled to his or her family for
protection. As a result, blood feuds developed in which the victim's family
sought revenge against the offender's family. Sometimes the offender's
family responded by striking back. Retaliation could continue until the
families tired of killing or stealing from each other or until one or both
families were destroyed or financially ruined.
As societies organized into tribes and villages, local communities
increasingly began to assume the responsibility for punishing crimes
against the community and its members. Punishments could be brutal the
condemned boiled in oil or fed to wild beasts. The development of writing
led to the creation of lists of crimes and their respective punishments. The
Code of Hammurabi in Babylon (circa 1750 b.c.e.) is generally considered
the first such set of laws. The laws of Moses, as recorded in the Bible, also
cited offenses against the community and their corresponding
punishments. The Justinian Code of Emperor Justinian of the Byzantine or
Eastern Roman Empire (529–565) organized many of the early codes.

As empires developed, the owners of large tracts of land, and later the
rulers, wanted a more orderly legal system than blood feuds and thus
established courts. Such courts often sentenced the offender to slavery in
the victim's family for several years as restitution for the offense. Other
punishments included laboring on public works projects, banishment, or
even death.

MEDIEVAL TIMES

As in ancient times, medieval Europe had very harsh punishments. Torture

and death were commonly administered. From the depths of the "Dark
Ages" came cruel instruments that tortured as they killed. For example, the
rack stretched its victims until their bodies were torn apart. The Iron
Maiden a box thickly set with sharp spikes inside and on the inner side of
its door pierced its victims from front and back as it closed. People came
to watch public executions to see the convicts burn, be hanged, or be
beheaded.

Confinement

Those arrested were usually confined (imprisoned) until they confessed to

the crime and their physical punishment occurred. The medieval church
sometimes used long-term incarceration to replace executions. Some
wealthy landowners built private prisons to enhance their own power,
imprisoning those who dared dispute their pursuit of power or oppose their
whims. With the enactment of King Henry II's set of ordinances, called the
Assize of Clarendon (England, 1166), many crimes were classified as
offenses against the "king's peace" and were punished by the state and not
by the church, the lord, or the victim's extended family. At this time the
first prisons designed solely for incarceration were constructed.

Prisons

The only comfort prisoners had in the cold, damp, filthy, rat and roach-
infested prisons of medieval Europe was what they could or rather were
required to buy. The prison-keeper charged for blankets, mattresses, food,
and even the manacles (chains). The prisoner had to pay for the privilege
of being both booked (charged) and released. Wealthy prisoners could pay
for plush quarters but most suffered in terrible conditions, often dying
from malnutrition, disease, or victimization by other prisoners.

THE RISE OF NATIONS

In Europe in the 1500s, while most jails still housed people waiting for
trial or punishment, work-houses and debtors' prisons developed as sources
of cheap labor or places to house insane or minor offenders. Those found
guilty of serious crimes could be transported instead of executed. England
transported many prisoners to colonial Georgia in the United States and
later to colonial Australia; France sent many to South America. Although
transportation was a less severe punishment than the death penalty, many
prisoners did not survive the harsh conditions either on board the transport
ships or life in the early colonies to which they were sent.

COLONIAL AND EARLY POST-REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD

Just as in Europe, physical punishment was common in colonial America.

Americans used stocks, pillories, branding, flogging, and maiming such as
cutting off an ear or slitting nostrils to punish offenders. The death penalty
was used frequently. In 1636 the Massachusetts Bay Colony listed thirteen
crimes that warranted execution, including murder, practicing witchcraft,
and worshipping idols. In early New York State, 20% of offenses,
including pickpocketing, horse stealing, and robbery, were capital crimes
(warranting the death penalty).

Jails were used to hold prisoners awaiting trial or sentencing or as debtors'

prisons, but were not the punishment itself. The Puritans of Massachusetts
believed that humans were naturally depraved, which made it easier for
some of the colonies and the first states to enforce harsh punishments. In
addition, since Puritans believed that humans had no control over their fate
(predestination), many early Americans felt there was no need for
rehabilitation.

PRISON REFORM IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY

By 1900 Brockway's correctional philosophy had spread throughout the

nation. Nonetheless, by World War I (1914–18), the idea of using
educational and rehabilitative approaches was being replaced by the use of
strict discipline. The way the facilities were built, the lack of trained
personnel, and the attitudes of the guards made Brockway's ideas difficult
to implement. In addition, the introduction of a probation system kept the
offenders easiest to rehabilitate out of the reformatories.

Despite this return to discipline, the reform movement survived. The

progressives of the early twentieth century believed that if prisons applied
the ideas of behavioral science to the inmates, prisoners could be
rehabilitated. The progressives worked to change the social environment
from which criminals came and to design ways to rehabilitate individual
inmates. By the 1920s reformers were strongly advocating indeterminate
sentencing, parole, and treatment programs as a way to rehabilitate
offenders, but this approach to corrections was not put into practice until
decades later.
While many of the reforms had merit, most could not be properly
implemented due to inadequate funding or the unwillingness of prison
officials to act. As each reform apparently failed to solve the problem of
crime, many people became disillusioned.

Medical Model:

Early efforts to provide correctional treatment attempted to influence

offenders through religious instruction and reform. After the Civil War,
these efforts evolved from teaching inmates to read the Bible to mass
liberal arts and vocational education programs. Starting in the 1950's, the
medical model was implemented as the treatment approach of choice. In
this model, criminality was treated in the same manner as a physical
disease. The behavioral science model later emerged, embracing some
elements of the medical model but incorporating scientific methods
applied to human behavior. Therapeutic communities in and out of prison
enjoyed some popularity in the 1970's, and the just deserts approach also
emerged in this decade. Regardless of the correctional approach, the
quality and credibility of relationships between offenders and correctional
treatment staff and significant others have a significant influence. In the
context of relationships, important considerations are discipline,
obedience, and behavioral change. An existential model for change is
offered as a catalyst to explore the positive potential of the human spirit in
correctional relationships.

The medical model of treatment in correction was first used as an analogy

to promote more humane treatment of offenders. Later it gained
prominence because crime was considered a symptom of an organic or
mental disease, and its acceptance has continued partly because of the
prestige of the medical profession. This standard of therapeutic treatment,
with its emphasis on the one-to-one relationship, is unrealistic for the vast
majority of offenders. Moreover, acceptance of an unattainable ideal has
retarded the development of alternative experimental models by providing
correctional administrators who are primarily inter ested in maintaining the
status quo with rationalizations for failures of the existing system.
Consequently, little real treatment is done in correction today. What is
called "treatment" is usually some type of administrative processing. Until
correctional goals are more carefully delineated and until new methods are
tried and evaluated, administrators and correctional personnel are in a
position to justify anything they do to offenders as "treatment." As long as
this situation continues, little progress will be made.

REHABILITATION MODEL

The rehabilitation model of corrections began in the 1930s and reached its
high point in the 1950s. Qualified staff members were expected to
diagnose the cause of an offender's criminal behavior, prescribe a
treatment to change the individual, and determine when that individual had
become rehabilitated. Group therapy, counseling, and behavior
modification were all part of the approach. These techniques did not work
with all inmates, especially with those convicted of violent crimes; most
states did not budget enough money for their correctional institutions to
achieve these goals; and there were too many prisoners for the prison staff
to treat effectively.

The rehabilitation model "makes sense" only if criminal behavior is caused

and not merely a freely willed, rational choice. If crime were a matter of
free choices, then there would be nothing within particular individuals to
be "fixed" or changed. But if involvement in crime is caused by various
factors, then logically re-offending can be reduced if correctional
interventions are able to alter these factors and how they have influenced
offenders. For example, if associations with delinquent peers cause youths
to internalize crime-causing beliefs (e.g., "it is okay to steal"), then
diverting youths to other peer groups and changing these beliefs can
inhibit their return to criminal behavior.
Sometimes rehabilitation is said to embrace a "medical model." When
people are physically ill, the causes of their illness are diagnosed and then
"treated." Each person's medical problems may be different and the
treatment will differ accordingly; that is, the medical intervention is
individualized. Thus, people with the same illness may, depending on their
personal conditions (e.g., age, prior health), receive different medicines
and stay in the hospital different lengths of time. Correctional
rehabilitation shares the same logic: Causes are to be uncovered and
treatments are to be individualized. This is why rehabilitation is also
referred to as "treatment."

The Prison manual

The purpose of the Prison Manual “is to provide instructions to

Corrections employees on the day-to-day activities relating to managing a
prison”.

These instructions are to ensure the safe, secure, humane, and effective
operation of prisons. All staff are to ensure that they perform their duties in
accordance with the instructions contained within manual.

In the event of conflicting instructions with other Departmental manuals

and directives the instructions within manual are to take precedence.

The manual frequently assigns responsibility for completing a certain

procedure to a particular position (or rank). Generally, this does not place
any limitation on who actually carries out the procedure. However the staff
member holding the named position is accountable for ensuring its correct
completion.

This manual is a dynamic document, influenced by legislation, policy and

strategic business plan outcomes. This means that from time to time
changes will be made to the instructions within manual.
The Model Prison Manual (MPM) forms the basic guidelines on the
conduct of prisons, which states are expected to adhere to by adopting it
into their own prison manuals. However, some states are yet to come up
with their manuals based on the first MPM, which was circulated by the
Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) in 2003.

In 2015, the Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs, under
whom the BPRD functions, to review the MPM as there had been a huge
change in circumstances and the availability of technology since 2003.

The court also suggested to the government that the committee constituted
to look into the MPM should be multi-disciplinary and include members
from civil society, NGOs and domain experts.

The new MPM is a detailed document consisting of 32 chapters that deal

with a variety of issues, including custodial management, medical care,
education of prisoners, vocational training and skill development
programmes, legal aid, welfare of prisoners, after care and rehabilitation,
Board of Visitors and prison computerisation.

The Supreme Court’s order on February 5, delivered by Justice Madan B

Lokur, describes the new MPM as a composite document that needs to be
implemented with due seriousness and dispatch. It is, therefore, imperative
that its aberrations are reviewed before it is recommended to the states for
adoption.

The yet-to-be released draft MPM 2016 includes a chapter on prison

discipline, the guidelines of which would make any civilized person
squirm.

Chapter 21 of the manual contains a list of prison offences and

punishments. Included in it are guidelines that renders futile the exercise
initiated by the Supreme Court to bring in reform in prisons.

According to the new manual, “refusing to eat food or going on a hunger-

strike” is considered a prison offence. If prisoners are not allowed to
register a nonviolent form of protest then there can be no reform initiated
through the manual no matter how progressive the other chapters are.
Under major punishments, the manual also prescribes the “forfeiture of
earned remission beyond 10 days”. The forfeiture of earned remission
without an upper cap and without the intervention of an appellate body in
opaque institutions like prisons is not only arbitrary but also cruel and
inhumane.

The chapter also prescribes duties for prisoners, one of which states:
“Abstain from talking when in a file at unlocking or at latrine and bathing
or other parades, or at any time when ordered by an officer of the prison to
desist; also abstain from abusing, singing, quarrelling, laughing loudly,
talking loudly and indecent behaviour at any time.”

Even if other duties make sense, the duty to abstain from “singing,
laughing loudly, and talking loudly” makes one wonder if what the new
manual is aiming at is to deprive prisoners of their basic right to be human
beings.

The Prisoner Guide to Prison Operations Manual Contents provides

prisoners an overview of the structure of the manual.

TAMILNADU PRISON MANUAL

Refer following link :

http://www.prisons.tn.nic.in/TAMIL%20NADU%20PRISON%20MANU
AL_updated.pdf

PRISONS ACT, 1894:

The Prisons Act, 1894 was enacted on 22nd March, 1894 and enforced on
1st July, 1894. The act was legislated with purpose to amend laws in
relation to prisons in India.

The term prison shall mean and include buildings maintained by state
government with the purpose to detain prisoners. Section 3 of the act
defines other terms such as ‘criminal prisoner’, ‘convicted criminal
prisoner’ and ‘civil prisoner’. Civil prisoner shall mean prisoner other than
criminal prisoner.
Chapter II of the act deals with maintenance and officers of prison. The
Act provides for appointment of Prison officers which shall include
superintendent, medical officer, jailer and other such officers shall be
appointed as deemed necessary. The prison shall be under in-charge of
Inspector General who shall discharge functions as directed by the State.
The state shall make proper arrangements for accommodation of prisoners
within the prison. Incase of an epidemic in the prison or in certain
situations when number of prisoners in prison increases the inspector
general under supervision of State shall take necessary steps for safe
custody of prisoners and provide temporary shelter.

Chapter III of the Act deals with duties of officers enumerated under
sections 8 to 20. Superintendent and jailer shall be officers of prison. All
officers including jailor shall be subordinate to superintendent who shall
be succeeded by jailer. Superintendent shall act in compliance of orders
given by Inspector general and shall look into matters relating to
discipline, expenditure, labour, punishment, maintenance of records
relating to prisoners, visitors and accounts. Medical officer of prison shall
be in subordination to superintendent and shall discharge functions with
respect to sanitary conditions, health, treatment of prisoners, reporting to
superintendent with respect to prisoners seriously affected with a disease
etc. Apart medical officer shall also keep record of all particulars such as
health, diet, diseases and date of death of deceased prisoner. Jailer of
Prison shall always reside within the premises of prison and shall not leave
prison without prior intimation. Jailer shall maintain all records and shall
be in-charge of prison and documents. Jailor shall be assisted by deputy or
assistant jailor. The Act also creates posts for prisoners, they shall be
called as convict prisoners and shall function and carry responsibilities
within prison premises and shall deemed to be public servants. Section 9
of the Act strictly prohibits jail officers to carry commercial activities
within jail premises.
Chapter IV of the Act deals with admission, removal and discharge of
prisoners. After conviction when convict enters into prison he shall be
thoroughly checked and all his belongings shall be kept in custody of
jailer. Female convict shall be checked only by female officers. A criminal
convict shall be examined by medical officer and marks and wounds on his
body shall be recorded. Prisoner shall only be removed from prison
premises if in the opinion of medical officer he suffers with acute disease.

Chapter V deals with discipline of prisoners, it lays few essentials i.e. that
male prisoners shall be separated from female prisoners, convicted
prisoners from under trial prisoners, prisoners under age of 21 shall be
kept separately, prisoners sentence with death sentence shall be kept
separately from all others.

Civil or an under trial prisoner shall have an access to commodities from

outside the prison subject to examination of the goods being received.
Such prisoners shall provide themselves with clothing’s and beddings. No
part of food, bedding or clothing belonging to civil and under trial prisoner
shall allow to be transferred to convicted prisoners.

Chapter VII deals with employment of prisoners. Civil prisoners shall

work after permission from superintendent and shall receive all parts of
their earnings. A criminal prisoner shall not work for more than nine hours
and shall work only incase of emergency. All prisoners convicted for
simple imprisonment shall be made to work within the premises.

The Act also lays directions as to taking care of health of prisoners within
the prison premises. Prisoners shall be subject to regular medical check-up
and sick prisoners shall be provided with proper medical care and
attention.

Sections 42 to 54 deals with offences relating to prison. Any person who

being into or removes from prison prohibited articles, abets offences
prohibited under act or communicates with convicted prisoners shall be
punished with imprisonment of six months or with fine of rupees two
hundred or with both. Prison offence are enumerated under section 46,
which shall include wilful disobedience of prison rules, use of criminal
force or threatening language, indecent behaviour, refusal to work, causing
damage to prison property or documents, preparation or conspiring for
escape, levelling false accusations against prison officers etc, offences
committed under the section shall be punishable under sections 46 and 47
of the Act. Incase a prisoner is in a habit of committing heinous crime time
and again, he shall be forwarded to District Magistrate or any other
Magistrate of first class by superintendent. The act under section 54 lays
punishment for offences committed by prison subordinates. The prisons
Act is an exhaustive Act which lays down laws essential for proper and
smooth functioning of prison.

TRANSFER OF PRISONERS ACT, 1950:

The Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950

1. Short title and extent.

(1) This Act may be called The Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950.

(2) It extends to the whole of India .

2. Definitions. In this Act,

(a) "court" includes any officer lawfully exercising civil, criminal or

revenue jurisdiction; "Government" or "State Government", in
relation to a Union territory means the administrator thereof.

(b) "prison" includes any place which has been declared by a State
Government, by general or special order, to be a subsidiary jail.

3. Removal of prisoners from one State to another.

(1) Where any person is confined in a prison in a State,

(a) under sentence of death, or

(b) under or in lieu of, a sentence of imprisonment or

transportation, or
 (c) in default of payment of a fine, or

(d) in default of giving security for keeping the peace or for

maintaining good behaviour; the Government of that State
may, with the consent of the Government of any other State,
by order, provide for the removal of the prisoner from that
prison to any prison in the other State.

(2) The officer in charge of the prison to which any person is

removed under sub-section (1) shall receive and detain him, so far
as may be, according to the exigency of any writ, warrant or order
of the court by which such person has been committed or until
such person is discharged or removed in due course of law.

4. Amendment of section 29 of Act III of 1900.[Rep. by the Repealing and

Amending Act, 1957 (36 of 1957), sec. 2 and Sch. I (w.e.f. 17-9-1957).]

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958:

The Act gives immunity to offenders and grants probation under the age of
21 from imprisonment unless the court is convinced with the special
reason to send the offender to imprisonment. The Act is a statutory
recognition to Gandhian thoughts.

The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was enacted with a purpose to grant
immunity to certain offenders when the court of justice deems fit.
Probation shall be given to offenders on ground of good behaviour,
offender’s age being less than 21 years and any other reasonable ground as
the court deems fit. The Act after its enactment was not enforced at once
but is supposed to be ratified by different states after notifying in the
official gazette as per sub clause (3) of section 1.

As per the Act the court shall release offenders on three grounds i.e. after
due admonition, good conduct and release of offenders who are below age
of 21 years.
The court shall only release offenders after proper admonition as mandated
under section 3 of the Act. As per section 3 when a person is found guilty
for offences committed under sections 379, 380, 381, 404, 420 of Indian
Penal Code or where a person is sentenced to imprisonment for not more
than two years, or fine, or both under Indian Penal Code or any other law
and such person has no previous proved criminal record the court instead
of sentencing such person shall release him after due admonition.

The Act also empowers courts to release persons if it deems fit, on

probation of good conduct. The court shall release a person on good
conduct when person accused of an offence has committed an offence
other than those punishable with death or life imprisonment, such person
shall be released on his entering a bond, which may be with or without
sureties. The court may lay certain observations for the person being
released. The conditions are that offender shall make himself present when
called upon, offender shall maintain peace and good behaviour. The court
shall not grant probation unless it is of opinion that offender and his surety
has permanent place of residence and occupation within jurisdiction of the
court. Sureties shall be guided as per provisions of Criminal Procedure
Code.

The Act under section 13 requires necessary appointment of probation

officer by state who shall be any person fit to act as probation officer in the
opinion of the court. The Probation officer shall give probation report
under section 4 of the Act when a person is being released on good
conduct. The Probation officer shall always function under authority of
district magistrate. Once a person is released on probation of good
conduct he shall remain under supervision of probation officer for a period
not less than one year.

The Probation officer shall be an officer of the court and his functions
shall be to enquire, supervise, submit report of the offenders and any other
function specified under section 14 of the Act.
Supreme Court in Ram Singh vs State of Haryana (1971) 3 SCC 914, held
that sections 4 and 6 of the Act lays down the procedures requiring the
Court to call for a report from the probation officer and consider it which
shall be mandatory as per provisions of section 4 sub clause (1) of the Act.

Court if it deems fit may order the offender to pay compensation to the
victim or his kin’s. The compensation paid shall always be reasonable and
be paid in accordance with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.

The act restricts imprisonment on persons below 21 years of age when

such person has committed an offence punishable other than with life
imprisonment. The court shall look into the nature of offence committed
and shall pass an order only if satisfied that it would not be appropriate to
deal under section 3 and 4 of the Act. The court shall only act after
receiving report from probation officer. Report given by probation officer
shall be confidential in nature.

The Probation officer shall supervise the activities of offender for a

mandatory period of one year within which if the probation officer is of
opinion that conditions of probation for offender should be changed he
shall communicate the same to magistrate. Here the variation shall be
made only with respect to bond after the surety and the offender is heard.
Person shall be released from supervision once Probation officer gives a
report in favour of an offender.

Where an offender fails to observe conditions of bond the court may issue
an arrest warrant, summon him and his surety, sentence him for original
offence, impose penalty not exceeding fifty rupees.

The state government shall have power to make rules. All actions in good
faith shall be protected under the provisions of the Act.
VARIOUS PRISON REFORM COMMITTEES:

Steps taken to Reform Prison

The modern prison system in India was originated by TB Macaulay in

1835. A committee namely Prison Discipline Committee,1836. The
contemporary Prison administration in India is thus a 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.

After Independence:

Mulla Committee:

(All India Committee on Jail Reforms 1980-83)- 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. It
recommended a total ban on the heinous practice of clubbing together
juvenile offenders with hardened criminals in prisons.

 The committee suggested setting up of a National Prison

Cmmission as a continuing body to bring about modernisation of
prisons in India.

 To constitute an All India Service called the Indian Prisons and

Correctional Service for the recruitment of Prison Officials.

 After-care, rehabilitation and probation should constitute an

integral part of prison service.

 The conditions of prison should be improved by making adequate

arrangements for food, clothing, sanitation and ventilation etc.

 Lodging of undertrial in jails should be reduced to bare minimum

and they should be kept separate from the convicted prisoners.

 The Government should make an endeavour to provide adequate

resources and funds for prison reforms.
Krishna Iyer Committee:

It was constituted in 1987 for women prisoners. It has recommended

induction of more women in the police force in view of their special role in
tackling women and child offenders.

Other Reforms to be Recommended

 The women prisoners should be treated more generously and

allowed to meet their children frequently.

 The prisoners belonging to peasant class should be afforded an

opportunity to go to their fields during harvesting season on
temporary ‘ticket on leave’ so that they can look after their
agriculture.

 The prison legislation should make provision for remedy of

compensation to prisoner who are wrongfully detained or suffer
injuries to callous or negligent acts of the prison personnel. It is
gratifying to note that in recent decades the Supreme Court has
shown deep concern for prisoners right to justice and fair
treatment and requires prison officials to initiate measures so that
prisoners basic right are not violated and they are not subjected to
harassment and inhuman conditions of living.

 There is dire need to bring about a change in the public attitude

towards the prison institutions and their management. This is
possible through an intensive publicity programmes using the
media of press, platform and propaganda will.

 Last but not the least, the existing Prison Act, 1894 which is more
than a century old, needs to be thoroughly revised and even re-
stated in view of the changed socioeconomic and political
conditions of India over the years. Many of the provisions of this
Act have become obsolete and redundant.
BLOCK 3 - CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Institutionalization: Meaning and purpose

Institutionalisation (or institutionalization) refers to the process of

embedding some conception (for example a belief, norm, social role,
particular value or mode of behavior) within an organization, social
system, or society as a whole. The term may also be used to refer to
committing a particular individual or group to an institution, such as a
mental or welfare institution. The term may also be used in a political
sense to apply to the creation or organisation of governmental institutions
or particular bodies responsible for overseeing or implementing policy, for
example in welfare or development.

In the United States and most other developed societies, severe restrictions
have been placed on the circumstances under which a person may be
committed or treated against their will as such actions have been ruled by
the United States Supreme Court and other national legislative bodies as a
violation of civil rights and/or human rights (see e.g. O'Connor v.
Donaldson). Thus a person is rarely committed against their will and it is
illegal for a person to be committed for an indefinite period of time.

Institutionalization

Imagine that you are the psychologist that Poddar talks to. He tells you that
he is having fantasies of killing Tatiana Tarasoff because she is still
interested in other boys. He thinks she should only be interested in him.
What do you do?

When someone is a danger to himself or others, he or she can

be institutionalized, or committed to a psychiatric facility. There are two
types of institutionalization: civil commitment and criminal commitment.
Though both civil and criminal commitment involve the judicial system,
civil commitment happens before someone commits a crime and criminal
commitment happens afterwards.
Let's go back to the situation from before. Prosenjit Poddar is sitting in
your office and says that he wants to hurt Tatiana Tarasoff. At that point,
you might decide that he is a danger to Tarasoff and try to have him
institutionalized against his will.

Since Poddar has not yet hurt Tarasoff, he has not committed a crime. As a
result, he will go through the civil commitment process. This includes a
series of steps that include legal hearings and testimony from a
psychologist. The process for civil commitment can be initiated by anyone,
which is why there are steps like hearings to protect the rights of the
mentally ill and keep people from being institutionalized unless absolutely
necessary.

So if Poddar tells you that he wants to hurt Tarasoff, you might try to have
him committed. But let's say for a moment that he didn't go to see a
psychologist and never told anyone that he wanted to hurt Tarasoff.
Instead, he simply attacked her. After he's arrested, he pleads not guilty by
reason of insanity. If the jury agrees that he was not guilty by reason of
insanity, he might be sentenced to be institutionalized instead of put in
prison, as he would be if he was found guilty.

In both criminal and civil commitment, a person is institutionalized only

for as long as it takes for him to cease being a danger to himself or others.
Usually, hearings are held at regular intervals to decide whether or not a
person is able to be released.

Evolution and development of prison system in India

The development of open prison institutions in India can be traced back

from the middle of the nineteenth century when the first All India Jail
Committee was appointed in 1836 to review the prison administration of
this country The Committee, in its report did not favour employment of
prisoners on major public works and therefore, the system fell into disuse
during the next twenty years. The Second Jail Committee was appointed in
1864 to review the Jail administration.
It was in 1877 that the question of employing prisoners on major work
sites such as digging of canals or dams etc. was reopened in the Prison
Conference of that year. The Conference strongly recommended that
employment of prisoners as labourers on large public works was not only
valuable but also a necessary adjunct to jail administration. This
recommendation was subsequently accepted and followed in practice.

The All India Jail Committee of 1919-20 re-asserted the need for humane
treatment of offenders. The chairman of the Committee, Sir Alexender
Cardew observed that the most critical moment in a convict’s life is not
when he goes into the prison but when he comes out of it. Having lost his
character and social standing, he finds it difficult to adjust to the normal
life of a free society.

The Committee expressed a view that the open air life and employment in
the form of labour were not averse to reformatory influences. Construction
of jail buildings was considered as a suitable form of such work for
prisoners. Though this Committee thought that the employment of
prisoners on agricultural farms was the most natural and appropriate form
of labour especially for prisoners who were largely drawn from the
agriculturist background, but such employment involved distribution of
labour over a very wide area which made guarding and supervision
difficult. Therefore, the idea was dropped.

During 1920-27, several provincial governments appointed Committees to

review prison administration and recommended changes of a far-reaching
nature. But the question of prisoner’s employment did not go beyond
expansion of cottage industries in prisons.

The post-independence period in India witnessed a radical change in the

prison policy and techniques of handling offenders. The old method of
confining prisoners inside well guarded prisons was discarded as it served
no useful purpose for the rehabilitation of criminals after their release.
With the advancement in knowledge of human behaviour, the part played
by psycho-social environment in the development of offender was
emphasised.
It was realised that inmates should be afforded fullest opportunity to
associate themselves with free society and the gap between the life inside
and outside the prison should be narrowed down as far as possible. Open
air Camps have done commendable service in achieving this objective.

The first scientific effort to modernise prison in India was made by Sir
Walter Reckless, the U.N. Technical Expert who visited India in 1952
when he submitted an excellent report on prison administration in India.
As a result of this, All India Jail Committee was appointed in 1956-57
which worked for three years and made useful recommendations for prison
reforms.

One of the recommendations of the Jail Committee was to set up open jails
for the rehabilitation of prisoners. The emphasis under this system was on
self-discipline and self-help. These open jails were characterised by the
absence of material and physical precautions against escapes so as to
inculcate a sense of responsibility among inmates towards the group in
which they live.

It must be stated that the basic philosophy behind the working of open
prisons is utilisation of prison labour for employment in open conditions. It
must be stated that even though the employment of prisoners in open
conditions is more than a century old but the objectives of such
employment have vastly changed in the sense that originally it was meant
to take hard work from prisoners under conditions which were humiliating
and dehumanising whereas today, it is aimed at providing them with useful
and meaningful work under conditions which help them in restoring their
self-respect and self-confidence.

Classification system: Individualization of treatment, meaning and

significance

An effective classification process is crucial to a well-run facility. It is also

a key to ensuring the safety of corrections professionals and inmates. Staff
needs to be confident in the classification moves that are made and the
inmates need to have a clear working knowledge of what is expected from
them to move forward in the system. In my view, there are a number of
crucial components to a successful classification plan. They are:

Initial Intake / Screening:

All inmates being admitted to a facility will optimally have a screening

done by classification that includes age, gender, tendency for disruptive
behavior, PREA concerns, and the governing charge that caused the
present incarceration. Other factors should be looked into as well including
past criminal history, other pending court matters, the need for special
housing, the number of prior incarcerations, previous institutional record
and the inmate’s program needs. A detailed screening allows Officers,
Program Staff and Medical Professionals the ability to know who they are
dealing with on a daily basis. It also lets the inmates know that the facility
has a good working knowledge of their background.

A Complete and Effective Policy:

Every facility should have a detailed classification policy that clearly lays
out the criteria for forward movement and which criminal charges will
disqualify inmates for some lower security levels including minimum
security and / or pre-release. The policy should also define staff
responsibility, the minimum requirements for certain statuses, and the
appeal process for inmates.

It is important for all staff who have frequent inmate contact to know what
is involved in the classification policy and screening process. Periodic
training in the criteria used in the classification policy helps ensure that the
inmates don’t know more than the Officers and Caseworkers.
Additionally, it will help ensure that the staff buys into the Department’s
philosophy especially if their input is taken into consideration.

Individual Service Plan: Ideally, each inmate will receive a detailed and
objective ISP soon after their arrival. The ISP should clearly define the
criteria for movement forward and backward. A complete ISP will be a
road map for the entire incarceration of the inmate. Optimally, it will have
the time frame that an inmate can progress through the system and will
detail the lowest level of security which the inmate can achieve. This
potential progress through the system must be contingent on good
institutional behavior, participation in programming and satisfactory
performance in work details. Inmate should know how disciplinary reports
will negatively impact their classification status and how severe the
setback will be when they receive disciplinary offenses.

Successful Integration with Other Areas: No matter how well written

and thought out a classification plan is, it will not be effective if it is a silo
from other disciplines in the Department. Having Officers and program
staff vote on inmates’ housing status at classification boards is a good way
to ensure that classification is not an island from the rest of the operation.
It also allows the people who interact with the inmates on a daily basis and
know how their behavior the best to have a say in their movement. If the
inmate frequently challenges staff and is borderline non-compliant in the
housing unit, it may not result in formal discipline; however, the Officers
will be able to report this to the classification board. The Officer will also
be able to report if the inmate is doing the right thing and give a
recommendation for positive movement forward.

Similarly, if the inmate is not giving 100% in their programming, the

Social Worker or Teacher can report this to the board. If the inmate is
taking his/her programs and classes seriously and is trying to have a
successful reentry into society, the program staff can inform the rest of the
board before a decision is made.

The facility’s Gang Intelligence Unit should also be used as a resource by

classification as they will have information on the dynamics between the
groups that may cause dissension and/or disruption in the units.
A good classification operation is truly the driving force of correctional
facilities. It helps prisons and jails meet their goal of ensuring the safety of
the staff and the inmates by giving positive incentives for good behavior
and disincentives for bad behavior. If a classification plan is effectively
integrated with programming, it also can assist with a lower recidivism
rate as inmates will focus on programming out of self-interest that may
start as wanting a better housing status but hopefully will end with them
focused on their rehabilitation.

Editor's note: Corrections.com author, Gerard J. Horgan, has been the

Superintendent at the Suffolk County House of Correction in Boston since
2003. He has been with the Sheriff’s Department for 24 years. A graduate
of Northeastern University and Suffolk University Law School, Horgan
has trained staff in inmate rights and civil liability and is an Adjunct
Professor at the University of Massachusetts where he teaches Corrections
and Criminal Justice. He can be reached at ghorgan@scsdma.org.

SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONS AND PRISONERS:

The National Conference on Best Prison Practices sponsored by the

Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi, and organised by the Academy of Prisons and Correctional
Administration, Vellore, here from March 9 to 11 has recommended that
scientific classification of prisoners based on security should be made
mandatory.

The conference recommended that the Model Prison Manual be used as

reference guide by all States to keep pace with contemporary
developments. The other recommendations include introducing a uniform
code in premature release procedures in all States, encouraging
professionals such as social workers, sociologists, psychologists and
criminologists to join the prison service, making mandatory the use of the
services of mental health professionals in prisons, making counselling of
inmates a continuous process, administering the mental status examination
to inmates at the time of admission, participation of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) in prisons for effective correctional administration,
making the design of the prison structure more rehabilitation-oriented,
conduct of victim-offender meetings with the help of NGOs for bringing
about reconciliation, introduction of vocational training programmes,
maximum utilisation of prison waste lands to provide gainful work to
inmates, and extension of furlough to all states where it is not in existence.

Evaluation

Another significant recommendation made by the conference was the

evaluation of the training programmes for prison officers in the country to
ensure that the curriculum is tailored to suit the needs of modern prison
and correctional administration.

Special types of prison

Prison establishments in India comprise 8 categories of jails. The most

common and standard jail institutions are Central Jails, District Jails and
Sub Jails. The other types of jail establishments are Women Jails, Borstal
Schools, Open Jails and Special Jails.

Adult Institutions

Central jail

The criteria for a jail to be categorised as a Central Jail varies from state to
state. However, the common feature observed throughout India is that
prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for a long period (more than 2 years)
are confined in the Central Jails, which have larger capacity in comparison
to other jails. These jails also have rehabilitation facilities.

Madhya Pradesh has the highest number of 11 Central Jails followed by

Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu with 9 each. Karnataka
and Delhi each have 8 Central Jails.
Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu & Lakshadweep do not have any Central
Jails.

District jail

District jails serve as the main prisons in States/UTs where there are no
Central Jails.

District old jail Bhopal

States which have considerable number of District Jails are Uttar

Pradesh(57), Madhya Pradesh(39), Bihar(31), Maharashtra(28),
Rajasthan(24), Assam (22), Karnataka (19), Jharkhand (17) and Haryana
(16), Kerala (11), West Bengal (12), Chhattisgarh (11), Jammu & Kashmir
and Nagaland (10 each).

Sub jail

Sub jails are smaller institutions situated at a sub-divisional level in the

States.

9 states have reported comparatively higher number of sub-jails revealing

a well-organized prison set-up even at lower formation. These states are
Maharashtra (100), Andhra Pradesh (99), Tamil Nadu (96), Madhya
Pradesh (72), Karnataka (70), Odisha (73), Rajasthan (60), Telangana and
West Bengal (33 each). Odisha had the highest capacity of inmates in
various Sub-Jails.

7 States/UTs have no sub-jails namely Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana,

Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Chandigarh and Delhi.

Women's Jail

Jails built to exclusively house women prisoners. Most of the staff in such
jails are usually women.

Maharashtra has 5 women jails. Kerala and Tamil Nadu each have 3
women jails.
Open jail

Open jails are minimum security prisons. Prisoners with good behaviour
satisfying certain norms prescribed in the prison rules are admitted in open
prisons. Prisoners, here, are engaged in agricultural activities.

Seventeen states have functioning Open Jails in their jurisdiction.

Rajasthan reported the highest number of 29 open jails. There are no Open
Jails in any of the UTs at the end of 2015.

Special jail

Special jails are high security facilities that have specialized arrangements
for keeping offenders and prisoners who are convicted of terrorism,
insurgency and violent crimes. Special jail means any prison provided for
the confinement of a particular class or particular classes of prisoners
which are broadly as follows:

Prisoners who have committed serious violations of prison discipline.

Prisoners showing tendencies towards violence and aggression.

Difficult discipline cases of habitual offenders.

Difficult discipline cases from a group of professional/organised criminals.

Kerala has the highest number of special jails - 16. Provision for keeping
female prisoners in these special jails is available in Tamil Nadu, West
Bengal, Gujarat, Kerala, Assam, Karnataka and Maharashtra.

Other jails

Jails that do not fall into the categories discussed above, fall under the
category of Other Jails. Three states - Karnataka, Kerala & Maharashtra -
have 1 other jail each in their jurisdiction. No other state/UT has an other
jail at the end of 2015.
The capacity of inmates (male & female) reported by these three States in
such jails was highest in Karnataka (250) followed by Kerala (142), Goa
(45) and Maharashtra (28).

Juvenile institutions:

Observation Home & Special Homes

Observation Homes are meant for the temporary reception of any juvenile
in conflict with law during the pendency of any inquiry against him /
her. Only children in conflict with law brought under the purview of the
Indian Penal Code and other legislations are produced before the Juvenile
Justice Board constitued as per the section 4 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Amendemnt Act 2006. The
apprehended children are normally detained under probahation up to 4
months in these Observation Homes.

Children who are convicted under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Amendment Act, 2006, are
admitted to Special Homes for long term rehabilitation. Four Special
Homes are set up, two for boys one each attached to Observation Home,
Bangalore Urban District and Belgaum and two for Girls, one each
attached to Observation Home Davanagere and Bangalore Rural. ‘ECHO’
a voluntary organization has been recognized by the Government as Fit
Institution to run Special Home in Bangalore Urban District. At the end of
March 2013, 9 Children were there in the Special Home. Special Homes:
Children who are convicted under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Amendment Act, 2006, are
admitted to Special Homes for long term rehabilitation

Juvenile Justice Board

Juveniles accused of a crime or detained for a crime are brought before the
JJB under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000
(amended in 2006). Under this act and provisions of the Criminal Code
Procedure children are not to be taken to a regular criminal court. The
purpose of a separate court is that its purpose is socio-legal rehabilitation
and reformation not punishment. The aim is to hold a child culpable for
their criminal activity, not through punishment, but counselling the child to
understand their actions and persuade them away from criminal activities
in the future.

The JJB consists of a metropolitan magistrate or a judicial magistrate of

the first class and two social workers, at least one of whom should be a
woman. All three people form a bench that are to function as a unit.
Though they have different roles they are required to coordinate for the
best interest of the child. When a child has been found guilty of a crime the
social workers are vital to deciding the best course of action for the
rehabilitation of that child. JJB are meant to resolve cases within a four
month period. Backlog of cases can be addressed with an increased
number of sittings as was the case in the Mumbai JJB.

A child is usually brought before the JJB be a police officer or person from
the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) (previously called JAPU). Any
organisation or person who brings a child before the court should inform
their local police units first. The police have 24 hours to produce a child
before the court once he is arrested. The person or police officer who
brings the child before the JJB is required to complete a report of the
arrest/detainment. Once the child has been brought before the JJB he/she is
registered into the closest Observation Home. Most circumstances the
juvenile can be released on bail by the JJB. If the police wish to interrogate
the child or conduct a test identification parade the JJB has to give an order
allowing so and it can only be conducted in the presence of the
superintendent of the home. The home probation officer (P.O.) in charge
will also submit a report on the child.

With the police report and P.O. report the JJB calls for the child's plea. If
the child pleas guilty the JJB will pass appropriate orders for the child. To
prevent coercion, the JJB can dismiss the child's guilty plea if it feels it
was forced. If the juvenile pleads not guilty the JJB must further
investigate by calling witnessing and accusers to testify before the court.
The juvenile is given then opportunity to address the evidence brought
before the court and also bring witnesses to the court. According to the
evidence the JJB will then pass an order disposing of the case as it sees fit.
The JJB is a child-friendly space that should not be intimidating or
overwhelming for the child.

CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE:

As per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act 2000 (amended in 2006) State governments are required to
establish a CWC or two in ever district. Each CWC should consist of a
chairperson and four members. The chairperson should be a person well
versed in child welfare issues and at least one member of the board should
be a woman. The CWC has the same powers as a metropolitan magistrate
or a judicial magistrate of the first class. A child can be brought before the
committee (or a member of the committee if necessary) by a police officer,
any public servant, CHILDLINE personnel, any social worker or public
spirited citizen, or by the child himself/herself.

The CWC usually sends the child to a children's home while the inquiry
into the case is conducted for the protection of the child. The CWC meets
and interviews the child to learn his/her background information and also
understand the problem the child is facing. The probation officer (P.O) in
charge of the case must also submit regular reports of the child. The
purpose of the CWC is to determine the best interest of the child and find
the child a safe home and environment either with his/her original parents
or adoptive parents, foster care or in an institution.

A final order must be given within four months of the admission of the
child before the CWC. The CWC also has powers to hold people
accountable for the child such as in the case of child labour, the employers
are fined or made to give bonds to the children. CWC also has the power
to transfer the child to a different CWC closer o the child's home or in the
child's state to dispose of the case and reunite the child with his family and
community.

Borstal School

Borstal Schools are a type of youth detention centre and are used
exclusively for the imprisonment of minors or juveniles. The primary
objective of Borstal Schools is to ensure care, welfare and rehabilitation of
young offenders in an environment suitable for children and keep them
away from contaminating atmosphere of the prison. The juveniles in
conflict with law detained in Borstal Schools are provided various
vocational training and education with the help of trained teachers. The
emphasis is given on the education, training and moral influence
conducive for their reformation and prevention of crime.

Nine States namely, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala,

Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Telangana have borstal
schools in their respective jurisdictions.[3] Tamil Nadu had the highest
capacity for keeping 678 inmates.[5] Himachal Pradesh and Kerala are the
only states that have the capacity to lodge female inmates in 2 of their
Borstal Schools.[5] There are no borstal schools in any of the UTs at the
end of 2015.

Institutions for women

Women's prisons

The majority of women incarcerated have experienced abuse before

prison, and while they are incarcerated they may suffer from post-
traumatic stress disorder. Sexual offenses against women prisoners can
include rape, assault, and groping during pat frisks. Male correctional
officials often violate women prisoners’ privacy by watching them
undress, shower, and go to the bathroom. Research suggests that, “women
with histories of abuse are more likely to accept sexual misconduct from
prison staff because they are already conditioned to respond to coercion
and threats by acquiescing to protect themselves from further
violence”. “In federal women’s correction facilities, 70% of guards are
male,” reinforcing female inmates’ powerlessness.

Most inmates are women of color from low socioeconomic backgrounds

and therefore suffer from both chronic diseases that are common in
minorities (such as diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension) and health
problems that may result from living in poverty (such as malnutrition,
etc.). Incarcerated women suffer disproportionately from HIV/AIDS,
infectious disease, reproductive issues, and chronic diseases. Within the
American prison system, HIV became more prevalent among women than
among men. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, from 1991 to
1998 the number of women prisoners with HIV increased by 69%, while
the equivalent figure among male prisoners decreased by 22% during the
same time period. The New York State Department of Health stated in
1999 that women entering New York state prisons had twice as high of an
HIV rate as men entering New York state prisons. At the end of the year
2000 women in U.S. state prison systems had a 60% higher likelihood of
carrying HIV than men in American state prison systems.

The needs of mothers during pregnancy and childbirth often conflict with
the demands of the prison system. “In 2007, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics stated that, on average, 5% of women who enter into state
prisons are pregnant and in jails 6% of women are pregnant”. Very few of
these women receive prenatal care, which can be very detrimental to both
the mother and child, especially when coupled with inmates’ histories of
inadequate health care as well as sexual, physical and substance abuse.
Most of these pregnancies are deemed as high risk. Additionally, a lack of
maternity clothes and resources to deal with premature births, false labors,
and miscarriages pose serious challenges to prisoners. Furthermore,
incarcerated women are a source of free labor for private companies. It is
recorded that if women decline to work, then their medicinal needs are not
fulfilled. This becomes a major issue for pregnant women who may not
physically be able to work but are in dire need of medical care. Most
pregnant women are shackled on grounds of security in labor and
delivery. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established that is
unconstitutional in 2009, and prohibited restraint of women during labor.

Vigilance home

The government vigilance home run by the Directorate of Social Defense

was set up during the British rule in 1930 under the Madras Vigilance
Service. From 1948, the T.N. government has been running it. Women
convicted by the court under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA)
are detained in this institution. Girls joining voluntarily with the
permission of the Director of Social Defense, orphaned or abandoned girls
who are mainly shifted from juvenile homes , girls kidnapped and rescued
by the police, women rescued from brothel homes are also housed as
inmates of Stri Sadna (see box for example of the sort of cases that come
to Stri Sadna). Unwed mothers are also kept in the home. The government
vigilance home consists of a fairly large campus with the main
administrative block. The office is on the ground floor of this building
while the first floor is used for storing mats, washed laundry etc and the
second floor is not in use but locked up. Adjacent to this is the barrack
which houses those remanded and convicted under the ITPA. In front of
this barrack is a dining room where all the inmates take their meals. Some
distance away is another building, the ground floor of which is used to
house the Stri Sadna inmates and the unwed mothers. There is also the mat
weaving and the tailoring room, a store etc. The first floor has the same
layout with most of the rooms lying unused-there is a welfare officerís
room, a doctor/psychologists room, the library etc. Apart from this there
are also other buildings which are vacant such as the quarters for the
assistant superintendent, the remand house (earlier used for remanded
inmates) which also has a waiting room for visitors. Women who are
placed in the government vigilance home, Chennai and the protective
home Coimbatore are mostly those, under the Suppression of Immoral
Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956(amended to Immoral Traffic
Prevention Act). All the rules under this act pertaining to protective homes
are applicable.

Clothing and bedding:

Rule 23 (2) under ITPA says inmates shall be supplied with the following
items: Sarees: 4 Blouses: 4 Petticoats: 4 Bodices: 4 Towels: 4 Sanitary
cloth: 2 yards Wooden combs: 2 (all in 1 year) Carpet: 1 Pillow cases: 1
Bed sheet: 1 (in 2 years) A sum of Rs.20, 000/- is sanctioned under the
material supplies category in the vigilance home, Chennai which covers
the bedding.

Protective Home

The government protective home was started in 1981 and covers the
Coimbatore and Yelagiri jurisdictions. It was earlier functioning as a
‘Rescue Home’ under the Revenue department. The building consists of 2
office rooms, a hall, a TV room, a room where the inmates sleep and the
kitchen area.

Open prisons in India

An open prison, also called minimum-security prison, open camp, or

prison without bars, is a prison which is open in four respects:

 Open to prisoners, i.e., inmates can go to market at sweet will

during the day but have to come back in the evening;

 Open in security, i.e., there is absence of precautions against

escape, such as walls, bars, locks and armed guards;

 Open in organisation, i.e., working is based on inmates' sense of

self-responsibility, self-discipline, and self-confidence; and

 Open to public, i.e., people can visit the prison and meet
prisoners. It is the kind of authority and the nature of management
transferred to the inmates and the degree of freedom from
physical restraints (to escape) that should be the real measure of
openness of an open prison.
The main objectives of establishing open prisons are: to reduce
overcrowding in jails, to reward good behaviour, to give training in self-
reliance, to provide dependable permanent labour for public works, to
prevent frustrations and create hope among long-termers, to provide
training in agriculture and industry, to examine the suitability of releasing
offenders from prisons, and to enable prisoners to live with their family
members (in some states).

The first open prison was established in Switzerland in 1891, in the United
States in 1916, in Britain in 1930, and in the Netherlands in 1950. By
1975, there were 13 open prisons in England, 25 in the United States, four
each in Sri Lanka and the Australia, three in Hong Kong, two each in New
Zealand, China, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand, and
23 in India (Ghosh, 1992: 9-10).

In India, the first open prison was started in 1905 in Bombay Presidency.
The prisoners were selected from the special class prisoners of Thane
Central Jail, Bombay. However, this open prison was closed in 1910. The
state of Uttar Pradesh established the first open prison camp in 1953 for
the construction of a dam over Chandraprabha River near Benaras (now
Varanasi).

Uttar Pradesh was followed by many other states in establishing j open

prisons.

The area of open prisons in different states varies from 10 to 50 acres

except in Andhra Pradesh (which has 1,427 acres), and Sitarganj camp,
Nainital, Uttar Pradesh (which has 3,837 acres)

The open prisons, usually located on the outskirts of a town fall within five
kilometers of the nearest town, except in Kerala and Uttar Pradesh where
they are situated 15 to 35 kilometres from the nearest towns.

The capacity of prisons varies from less than 100 to 1,000 prisoners. The
nature of accommodation also differs from place to place. Assam, Kerala,
and Himachal Pradesh prisons have permanent barracks; Mysore prison
has pre-fabricated structure, and Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra prisons
provide dormitories with asbestos roofs.

Some of these prisons provide work only in agriculture, some in industries,

and some both in agriculture and industries.

Eligibility conditions for admission to open prisons vary from state to

state. The main conditions are:

 Prisoners should be willing to abide by the rules of open prisons;

 They should be physically and mentally fit to work;
 They should have been sentenced for terms of one year or more
and must have spent at least one-fourth of the total term of
imprisonment in jail;
 They should have record of good behaviour in prisons;
 They should not be below 21 years or above 50 years as
prescribed by the state;
 They should not have been convicted for certain types of crimes
(like dacoity, forgery, counterfeiting, etc.);
 They should not have any case pending in the courts;
 They should not be habitual offenders; and (9) they should not be
class I (one) prisoners or women prisoners.

The procedure for selection of prisoners for open prisons is simple. The
superintendents of prisons prepare lists of prisoners to be sent to open
prisons on the basis of the eligibility conditions (as described above).

These lists are sent to the selection committees which examine each case-
history and make the final selection.

About 60 per cent of prisoners in open prisons are those who have been
sentenced for more than 10 years, while about 85 per cent are those who
have been imprisoned for more than 5 years. The average stay in the prison
varies from two to three years. The wage system also varies from prison to
prison.
It may thus be maintained that open prisons differ from the ordinary
prisons in four respects: in structure (affecting organisation and
administration), in role systems (affecting work and interaction in
everyday life), in normative systems (affecting social restrictions and
expectations guiding behaviour), and in value orientations (affecting
conduct and training).

While inmate system in ordinary jails is dominated by a set of values and

norms which are largely anti-social and anti- administration the inmate
system in open prisons is pro-adiainisttition. Open prisons are
characterised more by consensus among inmates.

Ghosh (1993) studied 200 prisoners from two open prisons (Sitarganj and
Mirzapur) in Uttar Pradesh in 1991 for analysing attitudes, Personality
traits, and ref- Tnation of prisoners in open jails. For a comparative study
(control group), she select 200 prisoners from two central jails of Banaras
(Varanasi) and Bareilly in the same slate.

She focused on two aspects: personality variables and adjustment level. In

Personality variables, she studied three aspects: (a) self-esteem, (b) Suilt-
feeling, anxiety and insecurity, and (c) extroversion, neuroticism, and
psychoticism. She found that:

i. More prisoners in open prisons indicate a high level of adjustment to

personal problems as well as to co-inmates and the staff than those in
closed prisons. The high adjustment is the result of better facilities and
free environment.

ii. Inmates in open prisons exhibit more positive self-esteem and positive
attitude towards co-inmates than those in closed prisons.

iii. Anxiety, insecurity and guilt-feelings are found more among the
inmates of closed jails than open camps.

iv. Attitude towards authorities is more cooperative among prisoners in

open camps than those in closed jails.
v. Psychoheism, neuroticism and extroversion among convicts are found
to be much less in open prisons than in closed prisons.

vi. Inmates of open prisons show more positive attitude towards society
than those in closed prisons.

 These findings thus point out the positive use of open prisons in
the reformation and rehabilitation of criminals. It may, however,
be noted that open prisons need to be restructured and
reorganised. What really needed is:

1. Establishing open prisons in all those states where they do not exist at
present.

2. Framing common rules of eligibility for admission and providing

facilities for offenders in open prisons in all states.

3. Laying down common rules of remission for inmates. For instance, a

prisoner in Sitarganj camp, Nainital (Uttar Pradesh) and Sanganer
prison, Jaipur (Rajasthan) earns remission at the rate of one day for
one day stay. In addition, he is entitled to fifteen days' remission for
good conduct every year. Besides, the superintendent and Inspector
General of Prisons are also empowered to grant special remission. The
prisoners are also permitted to keep their families with them, if they so
desire.

4. Checking biases, pressures and corruption in preparing lists of

prisoners to be sent to open prisons by superintendents.

5. Assigning powers to the courts for sending certain types of offenders

directly to open prisons.
BLOCK 4 - INSTITUTIONAL CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMES

Work Programmes

Generally, all sentenced prisoners under 65 years of age are expected to

work unless medically unfit to do so. Prisoners, including those with
disabilities and special security needs, are generally provided with the
opportunity to work for at least 60 hours a fortnight, although some
exceptions exist based on a prison's profile. Remand prisoners are also
given the opportunity to work but are not required to do so. Prisoners are
paid at a rate set by the Corrections Commissioner.

A sentence of imprisonment undermines the family cohesion and security,

destroys the prospects of legal earning for himself and for his family and
results in the loss of employment and assets.

Prisons in India are not only a liability on society but have lost the very
essence of their objective. Most of the prisons in our country (barring two
or maximum three) are a cost for the nation. The total expenditure on all
prisons combined, across the nation, was estimated to be around
Rs.2,69,726.80 lakhs during the year 2010-11, with every prisoner, on an
average, costing the exchequer Rs.19,446.60 (2010-11) Now, here is
where the paradox lies. These criminals are stuffed (literally) into our
prisons since they have created either an economic loss or social loss to the
country; and they are then made to survive on the tax paid by that very
aggrieved society. In simple terms, the total cost on all prisoners put
together is shared by around 150,000 taxpayers!

Assigning labour to inmates in correctional institutions is considered today

a major issue. Work is necessary for keeping inmates engaged to contain
their idleness and reduce their unrest and disciplinary problems, for
removing their monotony and improving their morale, for assigning such
hard labour to them which may deter them from repeatedly indulging in
crime.
For teaching them some useful trade which may help them to become self-
supporting after release from prison, for enabling them to earn and get
some extra facilities for themselves in jails and also for sending some
money to their families to support their children, and for reducing the
operating cost of maintaining jails.

Thus, the basic objective of prison labour is not only punitive nor to make
jails self-sufficient but also to keep prisoners engaged.

The tasks assigned to prison inmates till a few decades back were
generally unproductive. Besides, a large number of inmates remained
entirely unemployed. Even today, no work is assigned to the under trials
and prisoners of ‘A’ class.

Types of Penal Labour:

In all, six systems of prison labour have been identified which

prevailed/prevail in different parts of the world. These systems are: the
lease system, the contract system, the piece price system, the state use
system, the state account system and the public works system.

The first three are private systems while the last three are public systems.
In India, only the last three public systems of prison labour are prevalent at
present .Therefore, these three are discussed below :

Under the state account (or also called the public account) system, inmates
manufacture various commodities in the institution and the products are
sold in the open market in competition with the goods produced by free
labour. The state thus earns profit (or incurs loss) and exercises complete
control over the inmates as well as the entire business.

This system is prevalent in India even today and things like carpets, niwar,
furniture, durries, flower-pots, cane baskets, etc. are sold by prisons in the
open market. But the system has not picked up much owing to small
demand for prison-made goods, poor quality of the goods produced,
introduction of machinery in private industry, and lack of capital and
transportation facilities.
Under the state use system, the state supplies products of prisoners to
public institutions and agencies (like the police, schools, post-office
government offices, and so forth). This practice of restricting the mark
avoids direct competition with private enterprise and free labour while
utilising prison labour for the benefit of the public.

Under the public works system, the services of prisoners are used for
constructing dams, digging canals, cultivating land, and so forth. The
prisoners are paid the same wages as are paid to free labour. However, the
prisoners have to arrange for their own food out of the wages earned by
them.

The state account and the state use systems are the two systems which are
usually adopted by prisons in India. The training “given and the work
assigned to inmates in prisons can be classified into five major groups:
textiles and subsidiary, carpentry, leather work, black smithy, and
producing soap, rope, etc. It is estimated that no more than 30 to 35 per
cent of prisoners are engaged in productive work.Of these, more than 50
per cent are engaged in durrie-making, 25 per cent in handloom textiles,
and the remaining 25 per cent in other tasks (like carpentry, tailoring,
black-smithy, etc.).

Prison industries involve work contracted from outside the prison and
through service-type industries. Employment in a prison industry
emphasises developing work habits and skills that will help a prisoner to
gain employment when released. Prisoners often undertake a vocational
training program which is relevant to their prison work to gain
qualifications that are recognised in the community.

The range of industries offered varies from prison to prison, but common
examples include metal fabrication, manufacture of timber products,
agriculture and horticulture programs.
Some prisoners also work in facility services such as the kitchen, laundry,
cleaning, maintenance and gardening. Where possible, the types of
industries provided reflect market trends and industry needs.

Prison meals are prepared by prisoners trained in culinary skills prior to or

during their prison stay.

Community work

Prisoners who have a minimum security classification may work in the

community. In some cases the prison will have contracts for work such as
reforestation, minimising erosion and creating green corridors through
joint ventures with Landcare. Find out more about community work.

Right to Reasonable Wages in Prison:

Whenever during the imprisonment, the prisoners are made to work in the
prison, they must be paid wages at the reasonable rate. The wages should
not be below minimum wages. The payment has to be equivalent to the
service rendered, otherwise it would be ‘forced labour’ within the meaning
of Article 23 of the Constitution. In such a case there is no difference
between a prisoner serving a sentence inside the prison walls and a
freeman in the society.

According to the Law:

 It is lawful to employ the prisoners sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment to do hard labour whether he consents to do it or not.

 It is open to the jail officials to permit other prisoners also to do any

work which they choose to do provided such prisoners make a request
for that purpose.

 It is imperative that the prisoner should be paid equitable wages for

the work done by them. In order to determine the quantum of
equitable wages payable to prisoners the State concerned shall
 constitute a wage fixation body for making recommendations. We
direct each State to do so as early as possible.

 Until the State Government takes any decision on such

recommendations every prisoner must be paid wages for the work
done by him at such rates or revised rates as the Government
concerned fixes in the light of the observations made above. For this
purpose we direct all the State Governments to fix the rate of such
interim wages within six weeks from today and report to this Court of
compliance of this direction.

 State concerned should make law for setting apart a portion of the
wages earned by the prisoners to be paid as compensation to deserving
victims of the offence the commission of which entailed the sentence
of imprisonment to the prisoner, either directly or through a common
fund to be created for this purpose or in any other feasible mode.

Education and training

To improve employment opportunities on release, prisoners are

encouraged to participate in vocational education and training programs.
Education programs are delivered at the prisons by local TAFE providers.
While the range of programs offered varies from prison to prison,
vocational education and training programs are structured to ensure
prisoners are able to continue their course as they move through the prison
system.

Vocational Training

Vocational training or career technical education programs in prison are

designed to teach inmates about general employment skills or skills needed
for specific jobs and industries. The overall goal of vocational training is
to reduce inmates’ risk of recidivating by teaching them marketable skills
they can use to find and retain employment following release from prison.
Vocational and technical training programs can also reduce institutional
problem behaviors by replacing inmates’ idle time with constructive work
(Wilson, Gallagher, and MacKenzie 2000). In addition, some vocational
training programs can assist in the operation of prisons by having inmates
assist in institutional maintenance tasks.

The 2005 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities found that
85 percent of all reporting facilities offered formal educational programs to
inmates (Stephan 2008). At least half of the facilities (52 percent) offered
vocational training. Although most facilities responding to the census
reported providing vocational training, participation in the programs is not
always high and may be decreasing. For inmates in state correctional
facilities, participation in vocational training went from 31.2 percent in
1991 down to 27.0 percent by 2004 (Harlow 2003; Crayton and Neusteter
2008). Participation may be waning because of lack of awareness or
interest in such programs or reduced funding.

There are several obstacles that incarcerated adults must face upon their
release from prison, including the prospect of unemployment. A lower
level of educational attainment, an absence of a steady history of
employment, and a lack of vocational skills can hinder efforts to find a job
and make a decent wage. Providing educational programming and
vocational training to adults while they are in prison can help them
overcome these challenges by fostering the skills needed to find
employment (Davis et al. 2014).

Target Population / eligibility

The eligibility criteria to participate in vocational training will differ by

institution. Correctional facilities may consider the inmate’s age, the
current offense, time to release, scores on standardized tests, and any in-
prison infractions, among many other factors. Some institutions require
inmates to complete a certain level of education (usually a high school
diploma or General Educational Development [GED]) before participating.
This is to ensure that inmates have the basic skills and abilities needed to
complete training (Lawrence et al. 2002).
Practice Component

Vocational education can be offered in various trade industries, including

barbering, building maintenance, carpentry, electrical trades, painting,
plumbing, food service/culinary arts, horticulture, custodial maintenance,
upholstery, auto detailing, masonry, welding, and heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning. The type of vocational training available in a prison will
depend on inmates’ interests, availability of teaching staff, and funding.

Inmates may be connected with prospective employers through vocational

training or apprenticeship programs. In addition, some vocational
education programs include opportunities to work hours toward industry-
recognized credentials and certificates. In a recent survey of state
correctional education directors, Davis and colleagues (2014) found the
most commonly reported trade certifications were in construction,
occupational safety, plumbing or electrical apprenticeships, automotive
service, and welding certification. More than half of the respondents also
reported that they offered Microsoft Office certification, illustrating the
perceived importance of teaching inmates about general computing skills.
College credit may also be earned for some vocational training programs
at the postsecondary level.

Types of vocational training program

All prisoners, including those on protection or in management units, can

access state and nationally-accredited education and training programs.
These include:

 Asset maintenance

 Information technology

 Hospitality

 Construction

 Certificate of General Education for Adults

 Transport and logistics

 Horticulture
 Engineering
 Licences (e.g. forklift and Construction Induction Card)
 Small business managemen

Prisoners may also receive support to participate in distance education

offered by education providers from outside the prison system.

Vocational Training in India :

Industries

Prisoners are given training in various industries such as weaving, textiles,

blacksmithy, boot making , soap making, spiral binding, lamination, book
binding, rope, phenyle, sealing wax, tag and tape making, twisted thread
and host of others. Wages paid for the work at the rate of Rs.60/- for
skilled, Rs. 50/- for Unskilled and Rs. 45 for semi skilled prisoners.

Training in simple trades :

The object of vocational training to the Prisoners is for their reformation

and rehabilitation and with this object only simple trades like plumbing,
simple electrical wiring, painting including sign board writing, brick
making are conducted and prisoners are given certificates by SCVT to
enable them to seek employment after release.

Vocational Training :

Apart from Industrial Training, the prisoners are given training in the
following simple trades also by the Government as well as N.G.O.s for
their ultimate rehabilitation :

 Screen Printing
 Simple chemicals
 Food processing
 Plastic Flower making
 Agar Bathi making
Education facilities

Education Centres at each prison contain several classrooms, a small

library, and computer labs. Eligible prisoners may be permitted to have
computers in their cells for study or to assist them with their criminal
trials.

The Prisoners are provided elementary education through qualified

Secondary Grade Teachers in the Prison School

Non-formal adult education is also imparted to the illiterate Prisoners so

that they can read and write

Higher education is imparted by distance education programme conducted

by various Universities such as ManonmaniamSundaranar University,
Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Madras, Madurai
Kamaraj, Bharathiar and Bharathidasan Universities.

Certified computer training course is also imparted to the Prisoners by

N.G.O's.

Library :

In every prison there is one library with books of moral & educative value
for the use of Prisoners. Books are also borrowed from the District library
on loan basis.

A prisoner may also receive books during Interview or by post subject to

censorship and they may keep 3 books at a time.

Newspaper and Magazine :

Tamil and English news papers and magazines are supplied to inculcate
reading habit among the prisoners. All news papers and Magazine are
subject to censorship.
All prisoners are permitted to purchase at their own cost any of the
newspaper or magazine of their choice, subject to certain restrictions
imposed from time to time by the Government.

RECREATIONAL PROGRAMMES:

When most people think about prison recreation, they think of sports.
Actually it is much more. First, those in the profession call it Correctional
Recreation. Second, it can involve many activities ranging from passive
activities (TV watching and movies) to low energy activities (board
games, card games, billiards and bingo) to hobbies (ceramics,
photography, art, music, leather craft), to sports (basketball, softball,
volleyball, weight lifting), to special activities like gardening, pet therapy,
calligraphy and many others. Similar to college recreation directors and
college intramural directors, recreation supervisors develop and operating
recreational activities for those in prisons. They try to increase
involvement and participation by more inmates. Some prisons provide a
wide range of activities and facilities, while very limited programs are
operated at other facilities.

The goals and objectives of correctional recreation are broad. Here are a
few borrowed from a 1999 York Correctional Institution Manual:

Provide structured positive alternatives which can be used to fill leisure

time

Provide opportunities for inmates to channel and vent negative feelings of

tension and anxiety into positive productive attitudes

 Relief institutional stress (staff and inmates)

 Improve individual self esteem

 Improve health and fitness levels

 Improve individual creativity (mental and physical)

 Improve positive socialization skills

 Keep inmates occupied and reduce idleness

 Improve athletic and artistic skill levels

 Educate inmates of various game and sport rules and strategies

Most crimes are committed during leisure time. One of the underlying
goals of correctional recreation, is that inmates will acquire new leisure
skills to successfully re-enter society. Recreation activities include a
rehabilitative effect for some inmates and recent research has shown they
may also increase the effectiveness of other treatments (substance abuse
counseling) when teamed with those therapies.

Correctional Recreation Specialists work with special populations. Since

their clients are inmates, they have to understand security and personal
safety issues. Many work with the elderly, youth, mentally disabled, and
handicapped. They generally only work with ly, youth, mentally disabled,
and handicapped. They generally only work with inmates of a single sex
(men or women) and some inmates have challenging personalities.

A correctional recreation staff can range from one person performing a few
of recreation duties while primarily responsible for another position, to one
part time recreation person, to a full staff including a supervisor, several
assistants and some inmate workers depending on the size of the facility,
budget constraints and the level of emphasis placed on recreation.
Equipment (weight piles, cameras, board games, basketballs, softballs,
bats, etc) and facilities (jogging track, outdoor rec yards, softball fields,
ceramic kilns, photography darkrooms, music rooms, hobby rooms, indoor
and outdoor basketball courts, theaters, etc) similarly vary by institution
with federal facilities tending to support a wider range of activities.

Correctional recreators work in challenging conditions. They endure

bureaucracy and budget problems while rarely being recognized by the
outside world Pay is not high, but many find the job rewarding. We salute
them.
Recreation in India:

The Administration of prisons is accorded utmost priority by Government.

Concerted efforts are taken to improve the all round welfare measures of
prisoners and basic infrastructure facilities. While strengthening the safety
and security of Prisons, administrative changes are being made in Prisons.
The establishment of Prisoners' Adalat in the Prisons of this State is the
first of its kind in the country. The principles of correctional administration
are imbibed by Prison Department so as to provide for reformation and
rehabilitation in the system.

Yoga and Meditation:

In order to transform the lives of Prisoners Yoga and Meditation classes

and Counselling are conducted regularly by various NGO's in all the
Prisons. Various NGO's involved are as follows :

 Isha Foundation SahajaSthithiyoga programme, Coimbatore

 Vipassana Meditation MaavuthanSevaSamithi, Vepery, Chennai
 Magarishi Yoga Centre, Majakuppam, Cuddalore
 Project Officer, Deaddiction Centre, Cuddalore
 PrajaPithaBrammaKumarigalIswariyaVisvaVidhyala, Cuddalore
 ViyaktuVikas Kendra , Pollachi
 Brahma Kumaris, Chennai
 ViyakthiVikas Kendra, Chennai
 Sky Trust ManavalarkalaiMandram, Trichy
 Art of Living Yoga Meditation, Chennai
 Vikthivikar Kendra India Jeeva Nagar, Bangalore.

Counselling :

 Banyan, 6th Main Road, MogapairEri Scheme Mogapair West,

Chennai.37.

 Guild of Service (Central) Family Counselling Centre, No.18,(Old

No.28) Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai.8
SELF-GOVERNMENT AND OTHER ACTIVITIES:

In order to ensure discipline and obedience among inmates experiments on

self-government in prisons have been carried out in America and
elsewhere. The underlying purpose is to ensure complete freedom to
prisoners from external control. Under the system of self-government in
prisons, the inmates are to elect some of their colleagues as their
representatives and the entire prison management is rim by this elected
body of inmates.

They have complete control over mess and are expected to look after the
interests and welfare of their fellow prisoners. The self-government of
prisoners in Osborn (U.S.A.) jail indicated that the system proved to be
very successful and the number of escapes was almost negligible. The
inmates generally behaved well and never tried to misuse the liberty
extended to them.

In India, however, the system of self-government in prisons has not been

very successful. The reason for this unsatisfactory condition is perhaps the
lack of general moral discipline among the criminals who are generally
illiterate persons from the lower strata of society. It is for this reason that
instead of introducing complete self-government system, India has adopted
a system of partial self-government in its prisons.

Under this system, the prisoners who have good prison record are attached
to work with wardens and guards of the institution and thus they act as a
common link between the prison authorities and the fellow inmates. They
are extended certain facilities and are even allowed to move out of the
prison occasionally during the course of their work. This proves helpful in
many ways.

Firstly, it develops a sense of duty, honesty, trust and loyalty among the
prisoners and secondly, it has a psychological effect on other inmates as
they are convinced that a disciplined behaviour in prison would entail
them certain facilities including some reduction in their term of sentence
like their fellow prisoners.
PRISONIZATION AND SUB-CULTURE:

“Prisonization” refers to the process by which inmates adapt to prison life

by adopting the mores and customs of inmate subcultures. Some regard
prisonization as the socialization of inmates to the culture of prison.
Prisonization of inmates enhances successful participation in prison
society and results in the continuity of prison culture. Prisonization, like
socialization, is an educational process whereby inmates learn prison
culture through social interaction. Several models have been employed to
explain the origins of inmate subcultures, namely deprivation, importation,
integrated/multilevel, and situational.

Human Rights in Prison :

The Human Rights of prisoners are taken care of by providing better living
conditions with sufficient accommodation, ventilation, food facilities,
potable drinking water, better diet, medical and sanitation facilities
interview and communication facilities, entertainment , free legal aid etc.

The staff also provided sufficient training in Human Rights so as to alter

their attitude towards the Prisoners.

Types of Sentence :

Simple Imprisonment:

Labouring is not compulsory on sentence.

Rigorous Imprisonment:

Labouring is compulsory on sentence.

Life Imprisonment:

Rigorous Imprisonment to his life time.

Punishments for Prison offence:

The prisoner who commits prison offences, enlisted in the Prison rules will
be given the prescribed Prison punishment. The Superintendent may
impose minor or major punishment as classified in Prison rules including
prosecution depending upon the gravity of the offence.
Prison Subculture is the culture of prison society and thought by some to
arise from the ‘pains of imprisonment’, while others believe it is imported
to the prison. Prison Subculture is also known as the ‘convict code’.
The Prisonization model postulates that inmates react or adapt to the
deprivations of imprisonment by forming the inmate subculture and
behaving accordingly.

Subculture refers to group that shares common values, norms, beliefs and
Prison subculture refers to inmate code. The process of taking on norms
and customs of prisons is called prisonization. Some of the features of
prison subculture are:

 do not inform on your fellow prisoners,

 do not trust staff,

 help other residents,

 show your loyalty to other residents,

 share what you have.

The first models of the prison subculture, such as those purported by

Clemmer and Sykes, were rooted in the structural-functionalist paradigm
of criminological thought. Alternative explanations, such as the
importation model developed by Irwin theorize that the subculture of
prison may not be centered around common norms and values. Recent
attempts have been made to integrate these perspectives. Does integration
have theoretical explanatory power when examining the contemporary
prison subculture? Can an integrated approach inform penologists as to
how females serve time? The present paper seeks to answer these
questions. - Theoretical Studies of the Prison Subculture: Contemporary
Explanations for Female Inmates. - Courtney A. Waid, Florida State
University.

Inmate Argot as an Expression of Prison Subculture: The Israeli Case -

TomerEinat, HaimEinat, Hebrew University of Jerusalem - The study
examines the argot (jargon) of prisoners as a reflection of the norms and
values comprising the inmate subculture in Israeli prisons. The
phenomenological interview method was used to examine the language of
a sample of long-term prisoners for the existence of an inmate argot.
Having established that such an argot does exist, the data was subjected to
a content analysis and the salience of the argot terms assessed using two
measures, attention and intensity. The argot expressions were divided into
categories with reference to different aspects of prison experience: prisoner
status (informers, inmate rank), drugs, sexual relations in prison, violence,
prisoner behaviors, nicknames for police officers, and prison staff.

Prison Subculture in Poland - Marek M. Kamiski, Don C. Gibbons - This

article draws on the prison experiences in Poland of the senior author to
identify some of the major ingredients of the prison subculture in that
country. The dominant inmate pattern of grypsing is described, as is the
physical environment of Polish prisons. This article also examines
"prisonization" processes and the norms of the grypsing group. Some
contrasts between American and Polish prisons are also noted.
The (post)-soviet prison subculture faced with the use of self-management
doctrines by the corrections administration - This article on the post-soviet
prison subculture shows the connection between the establishment of new
informal rules in prisons and changes in the means of submission used by
penitentiary institutions under Khrushchev, as well as the influence of the
main principles of Anton Makarenko’s collective pedagogics on the
above-mentioned means. Analytically, the article is focussed on different
forms of the public sphere which can exist in prison environments. Special
emphasis is laid on the importance of the historical approach in
understanding the present situation in post-soviet penitentiaries.

Abstract

Forecasting Sexual Abuse in Prison: The Prison Subculture of Masculinity

as a Backdrop for "Deliberate Indifference" - Christopher D. Man, John P.
Cronan - Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 92, No.
1/2 (Autumn, 2001 - Winter, 2002),

Intraprison HIV Transmission and the Prison Subculture - Christopher P.

Krebs, Research Triangle Institute - Two theoretical models have been
employed to explain the prison subculture and inmate behavior.
Prisonization model postulates that inmates react/adapt to the deprivations
of imprisonment by forming the inmate subculture and behaving
accordingly. Importation model contends that inmates import their social
system with them when they enter prison. While these models have
traditionally competed for support, a number of researchers have called for
theoretical integration and have successfully documented its
appropriateness. In this study of intraprison HIV transmission, the
theoretical models are tested in the context of behaviors that facilitate HIV
transmission in prison, namely, sex, intravenous drug use, and tatooing.
Support for prisonization and importation, however, is not uniformly
distributed across all three high-risk behaviors. While both models explain
high-risk HIV transmission behavior in general, certain behaviors are
explained largely by individual models. Prison sex appears to be largely
the result of prisonization (deprivation of heterosexual relationships),
whereas intravenous drug use seems to be largely a product of importation.
While theoretical integration has its place in explaining the universe of
inmate behavior and the prison subculture, wholesale integration may not
be necessary when attempting to explain specific behaviors.

PRISON ROUTINE:

Prisoners are unlocked at 8.00 am , when they receive on a tray on the

landing and bring back to their cells. All meals are eaten in the cells. After
breakfast, they are unlocked again and can go to the exercise yard, attend
to their work on the landings, go to school, the gymnasium or to
workshops. Each morning the Governor is available during what is called
the ‘Governor’s Parade’, where the Governor and the Chief Officer meet
with the prisoners. If a prisoner wishes to speak with the Governor he can
give his name to his Class Officer. Dinner is at 12.30. At 2.00p.m. they are
unlocked again and can go to the exercise yard, school , work etc until
4.20 pm. Tea is given out then. After tea prisoners are unlocked for
evening recreation/exercise or night classes in the school. At 7. 20 pm they
are locked up until the following morning. (Apart from the food provided
at mealtimes by the Prison Kitchen, prisoners can place weekly orders in
the “Tuck Shop” for smaller food items, newspapers and toiletries)

Daily life in prison

Entering prison

When you enter prison, you’ll go through 3 steps:

 Admission

 Induction

 classification

When you arrive, staff will record your physical description, personal
details, and take your property. This includes any jewellery (with the
exception of plain wedding rings) or watch you may be wearing; only
approved prison jewellery and watches may be worn in prison and these
can be purchased while in jail.

You are then:

 required to undergo a removal of clothing search and given a medical

examination

 allowed to shower

 issued with prison issue clothes

 photographed

 interviewed by a counsellor

 allowed to make a phone call

 given an identification card

 allocated a cell.

You then participate in an induction, where you learn about the prison and
its rules and what’s required of you during your time there.

You are then assessed for your health, education and intervention needs for
security classification. This determines centre placement options, as well
as access to training, intervention and work programs. Classification and
assessment can take up to 3 weeks and once complete you may be moved
to another prison better suited to your needs.

Upon reception to a corrective services facility, you will be assessed for a

smoking cessation support program.

Accommodation

Almost all cells in Queensland correctional centres are single cells which
contain a bed, shower and toilet. You are responsible for keeping your cell
clean and tidy.

You may keep in your cell:

 prison-issued items, such as toiletries, clothing, footwear, bedding and

sometimes a television

 personal items, such as clothing (underwear and socks), writing paper,

pen, bible, photographs and a watch

 extra books and study material, a cassette/CD/radio or other items that

have been approved (depending where you are located and your
security classification).

Prohibited and restricted items

You are not allowed certain items such as weapons, drugs, ammunition,
flammable substances, explosives, grappling hooks, cutting instruments,
false identification, passports, mobile phones, modems, scanners, alcohol,
tobacco and other smoking related products (including cigarette lighters,
matches, papers, filters), tattoo guns, unauthorised keys, or any other item
that might endanger others or assist in an escape.

If Queensland Health prescribe medication for you, this medication must

be taken whilst you are supervised on a medication parade or in the Health
Centre.

From 5 May 2014, smoking is not allowed anywhere on the grounds of a

corrective services facility (including car parks, walkways, visits
processing etc). Queensland Health may also prescribe certain medications
to help with quitting smoking. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is
provided in the form of patches and given to suitable prisoners.
Inappropriate use of NRT, including collecting, selling, swapping or
giving away free NRT, will result in removal from a smoking support
program.

You may undertake a smoking cessation support program by nominating

with your facility's Health Centre.

Money and buying things in jail

While in jail you can hold a personal prison trust account of up to $1000.
You can use this to buy permitted items. In addition you can hold up to
$300 in your telephone account to make personal phone calls.

You can use your prison trust account to buy items from the prisoners’
canteen including food items and certain recreational items (such as art,
hobby and educational materials) or to rent a TV set directly from the
prison.

With permission, you may also be able to buy certain items not available
from the prisoners’ canteen from an approved outside source. This
includes underwear, magazines, greeting cards, recorded music, footwear,
and electrical goods; although you are not allowed to buy some items such
as DVDs, DVD players, or electronic game consoles.
You may also have to use money in your prison trust account to pay for
items of prison property you intentionally break while in prison, or you
may have to make payments to a victim under the criminal injury
compensation scheme.

You will be given any remaining money in your trust fund when you are
discharged from prison.

Dress regulations

You must wear regulation prison-issued clothes at all times. You will be
allowed to wear your own clothing if attending court. Your clothing must
be neat and clean.

Daily routine

A prisoner’s day is highly structured, with specific times for musters, head
counts, meals (eaten communally unless the prisoner is in a residential
unit), activities (such as educational, recreational and hobby programs) and
work.

Arrangements for weekends and public holidays may differ.

Telephone access

Making calls

You are not allowed access to a mobile phone while in prison; you can,
however, make calls through the Prisoner Telephone System (PTS).

To get access to the PTS you need to make a written application to the
prison authorities including a list of phone numbers a prisoner can have up
to 10 registered numbers of people you want to call. These are checked for
accuracy and to ensure the person you have listed wants to receive calls
from you. You can’t include certain numbers such as those used by the
TAB, gaming agencies or telephone chat lines.
PTS calls are limited in duration, are recorded and may be monitored by
the prison authorities.

You are not allowed to divert to other numbers or take part in conference
calls.

Each centre has a community list of numbers (such as Prisoners Legal

Service and Legal Aid Queensland) that you can call in addition to your
personal phone list

Paying for calls

You must pay for all other personal calls. A phone account will be set up
for you with your own money and you can transfer up to $100 from your
prison trust account to your phone account.

Receiving phone calls

Prisoners cannot usually receive phone calls. If you think there might be
an emergency when your family might need to phone you, discuss this
with a staff member.

Internet

In jail, prisoners do not have access to email, social media or the internet.

Personal mail and parcels

Normal mail

There is no limit to the number of letters you may send or receive. All
normal mail is searched for contraband but is not censored unless
authorized by the person in charge.

Incoming mail (except privileged mail) should contain only letters and
approved family photographs. If approved, you may also receive religious
reading materials, underwear and court clothing through the mail.

Any mail considered a threat to security or safety may be seized and the
sender may be charged for mailing illegal items.
All outgoing mail (except privileged mail) is placed unsealed in the box
provided. You can buy pre-stamped envelopes at the centre using your
prison trust account

Privileged mail

The content of privileged mail can not be opened or read by a corrective

services officer, except under certain circumstances e.g. if they suspect the
item contains a prohibited item. Items of privileged mail can only be sent
to, or received from, a ‘prescribed person’. This includes mail from the
prisoner's legal representative, the Director of Public Prosecutions, a
Community Corrections Board, the court, the Ombudsman or the Minister
for Corrective Services.

If a prisoner is sending mail to a prescribed person, the item can be sealed

without the presence of a corrective services officer. Unless there is
reasonable suspicion the item contains something illegal, it will be
processed and sent unopened.

Prison visitors

While in prison it’s important you maintain links with your family and
friends, so we encourage you to receive visits from them.

A prisoner is entitled to one non-contact visit per week but if approved a

prisoner may have up to 2 hours of contact personal visiting time each
week either 1 2-hour or 2 1-hour visits each week and perhaps other
special visits. This is in addition to visits from your legal representatives or
official visitors. However, not everyone can visit; people with a criminal
record may not be allowed to visit you.

Visitors must apply and make a booking to visit you, prove who they are
and follow prison rules and regulations during the visit.
CULTURE SHOCK INCARCERATION:

Inmates are told or provided what to wear, when and what to eat, when to
shower, when to go to the gym, when they can go outside, what they can
and can’t have in their cell, how much stuff they can have. They never
have to turn on or off a light. Many haven’t used a computer or a cell
phone. Their families have lived without them and have grown into people
they don’t know. They don’t understand the usual common courtesies
almost no one says excuse me, thank you, please, or I’m sorry in prison.
They stand too close to people, always want their backs to the wall, don’t
trust anyone, and want to protect the few things they do have. They will
speak too loudly and be very demanding because that worked in prison.
Their culture is different in countless ways. The things that spark them to
anger is different. They will overreact because action speaks louder than
words in prison. Their sense of entitlement is high because they have had
to demand attention while incarcerated. There is no way for a never
incarcerated person to fully understand the mindset of an incarcerated
individual, especially someone who has been incarcerated a long time.

UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson

Mandela Rules)

The UN was founded after the Second World War by 51 countries never
wanting to see the horrors of war and holocaust again. Over the last 70
years, UN membership and relevance has grown, and it now has 193
member states. It is the world’s largest and most important international
organization.

The UN is independent and universal. It is the only forum in the world

where peace and security, human rights and development are debated by
all countries in the world.

Since 1964 Amnesty has had special consultative status at the UN, which
has allowed us to shape crucial developments in human rights, including:
 The adoption of key UN Conventions. Such as against Torture and
Disappearances and, curbing the arms trade.

 Optional Protocols to human rights treaties for the abolition of the

death penalty and to keep children out of armed forces.

 The establishment of national mechanisms to prevent torture and to

allow people to make complaints against their governments for
violations of their rights.

 The creation of a High Commissioner for Human Rights the Human

Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review.

 The establishment of Special Procedure mandates on issues such as

human rights defenders, the elimination of discrimination against
women, counter-terrorism and human rights and business and human
rights.

 The adoption of resolutions such as the almost unanimous halt to the

death penalty and the protection of civilians in crisis situations.

 The adoption of the UN Declarations on Enforced Disappearance,

on Human Rights Defenders and on Human Rights Education and
Training.

Bearing in mind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other
international human rights instruments pertaining to the rights of young
persons, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners was
Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime
and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by
the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31
July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977

The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

(SMRs) were initially adopted by the UN Congress on the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1955, and approved by the UN
Economic and Social Council in 1957.

On 17 December 2015 a revised version of the Standard Minimum Rules

were adopted unanimously by the 70th session of the UN General
Assembly in Resolution A/RES/70/175; (see PRI’s press release). This
followed a four-year revision process after a 2010 UN General Assembly
resolution which requested revision of the SMRs ‘so that they reflect
recent advances in correctional science and best practices’. The revised
Rules are known as the ‘Nelson Mandela Rules‘ to honour the legacy of
the late President of South Africa, Mr. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, who
spent so many years of his life in prison.

PRISON ADALAT:

Adalat is a Hindi word that means 'Court' or 'Court Hall'

Jail Adalats as a Proposed Remedy Policy makers in India have recognised

the magnitude of the problem of high percentage of under-trial population
in prisons. The Law Commission dealt with the issue in a separate report
in 1979.7 Its major recommendations included a liberalised bail policy and
expeditious disposal of cases. Thirty years hence, overcrowding in prisons
remains a problem. The government is not denying that over-
representation of the under-trial population within the prisons is a grave
problem, but the solutions suggested by the Law Commission have not
been realised in practice. The legislature and the judiciary have both
stepped in to ensure that the bail regime is liberalised, but the practice
remains far removed from the intent. Disposal of cases still takes a long
time. In fact so much systemic dysfunction has piled up that there is a
growing justification for adopting “short-cut” mechanisms – that also
dilute the ‘due process rights’ – so that the system can be seen to be
functioning. Fast track courts, plea-bargaining, jail adalats are some of the
institutionalised examples of this. Others include proposed ideas to allow
police to record confessions, reduce the burden of proof from ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’ to the ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the judge. Translated
literally as prison court, jail adalats see judges holding courts in prisons to
dispose off cases of “petty” offenders who are willing to admit guilt.
Devised as a strategy to deal with overcrowding and high under-trial
population, jail adalats have not been able to address the problem. In fact,
many argue that they have themselves become a part of the problem.
Those opposed to jail adalats argue that these courts are not just. They are
short in procedure and exploit the vulnerability of the poor prisoners.
Those who have the means are released on bail and the poor are given a
dubious choice. They can stay in prison and await a trial for months or
years, or they can opt to confess and be released after recording a
conviction for the period (of imprisonment already) undergone.
Proponents of jail adalats, on the other hand, argue that while these courts
may not be the best solution, they at least offer some choice to poor people
to get out of the horrifying conditions that prevail in prisons. They argue
that the choice, albeit a dubious one, must lie with those who suffer
imprisonment. These difficult decisions of whether or not to hold jail
adalats must not be taken by people who claim to represent the prisoners
without ever having faced harsh prison conditions.

It is pertinent to note that more than 50% of the population in jail are
under-trials. The first prison Adalat was inaugurated on 15.8.2000 in
Chennai Central prison followed by Madurai, Trichy, Vellore Cuddalore
and Salem. In Vellore, there are two prisons, one for males and another for
females, and for each of those prisons, prison Adalat is established. The
functioning of prison Adalats has reduced not only the pendency of cases
but also the prison population.

Prison Adalats are held by every Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the

Chief Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate
in Central Jails on regular basis. The cases of under-trial prisoners who are
involved in petty offences punishable up to three years are being disposed
off through prison Adalats.
BLOCK 5 - COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONS

PROBATION:

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender,

ordered by a court instead of serving time in prison.

In some jurisdictions, the term probation applies only to community

sentences (alternatives to incarceration), such as suspended sentences. In
others, probation also includes supervision of those conditionally released
from prison on parole.

An offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth

by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. During the
period of probation an offender faces the threat of being incarcerated if
found breaking the rules set by the court or probation officer.

Offenders are ordinarily required to refrain from possession of firearms,

and may be ordered to remain employed or participate in an educational
program, abide to a curfew, live at a directed place, obey the orders of the
probation officer, or not leave the jurisdiction. The probationer might be
ordered as well to refrain from contact with the victims (such as a former
partner in a domestic violence case), with potential victims of similar
crimes (such as minors, if the instant offense involves child sexual abuse),
or with known criminals, particularly co-defendants. Additionally, the
restrictions can include a ban on possession or use of alcoholic beverages,
even if alcohol was not involved in the original criminal charges.
Offenders on probation might be fitted with an electronic tag (or monitor),
which signals their whereabouts to officials. Also, offenders have been
ordered to submit to repeat alcohol/drug testing or to participate in
alcohol/drug or psychological treatment, or to perform community
service work.
1. Concept and Scope

The term ‘probation’ was derived from the Latin word ‘Probare’
meaning to test or to prove. This meaning of the term constitutes the
essence of probation even in the contemporary context although
probation has gone far ahead shedding its traditional legalistic
connotation. Correctional literature was almost flooded with
definitions of probation. Diana (1960), however, reviewed a number
of these definitions and grouped them into the following six categories

1.1 Legal Disposition Only Such definitions tend to view probation

simply as a suspension of sentence by the court. The offender
remained in the community until the length of sentence expired unless
of course in the meantime he had engaged in any conduct that would
warrant carrying out of the sentence. This system left everything on to
the probationer and made probation as a simple policing procedure. It
implied two things to the probationer: a) another chance; and b) threat
of punishment, lets he failed to improve his conduct. Mostly, persons
with legal background defined probation as above.

1.2 Measure of Leniency Probation as leniency was a definition which

was seldom expressed in literature. Diana (1960) reported such a
finding only once during his survey. This view, however, seems to be
held most widely by the general public and the offenders who often
viewed probation as a device for “letting off”. In view of this
understanding it was rather wrongly conceived by them that the
offenders whose acts were unfortunate slips, were therefore, not in any
need of treatment whether punitive, preventive, or corrective in nature.

1.3 Punitive Measure According to these definitions probation was

viewed as a form of punishment, which while permitting the offender
to escape commitment to a penal or correctional institution, made
other demands, the non-fulfilment of which, subjected the offender to
receive some kind of punishment which the other like offenders got.
1.4 Administrative Process Such definitions tend to view probation as the
execution of concrete measures aimed at helping the offender stay out
of trouble. This view stressed Probation Officers role in investigating
and supervising his clients, assisting them in finding work or training,
and enforcing the terms and conditions of probation. Interestingly
enough, probation as an administrative process was beginning to
reassert itself, particularly through concepts, such as “term probation”
in which, process and functional division of responsibility assumed
increasing importance.

1.5 Social Casework Treatment Probation according to these definitions

was viewed as a form of treatment administered by probation officers
on a case-work basis, applying case-work principles and techniques,
in dealing with the offenders.

1.6 Combination of Casework and Administration From this point of

view, probation was represented both by case-work functions and by
administrative or executive procedures. This combination of casework
and administration recognised that they were both applied
simultaneously in the practice of probation. What changed from one
situation to another was the emphasis. For example, a stable middle
aged housewife on probation for vehicular manslaughter would
probably receive probation services which could be described as
primarily administrative and her probation might amount to little more
than periodic “reporting in. Whereas a young high school drop-out
with some drug involvement placed on probation for purse snatching
would on the other hand receive a much more casework oriented
probation. The most commonly accepted definitions were those that
treated probation as a method of treating offenders by releasing them
on good behaviour on the conditions prescribed by the court and under
the guidance of probation officer. The Manual of Correctional
Standards (1966) defined probation “as a sentence, a judicial
disposition which establishes the defendants legal status under which
 his freedom in the community is continues, subject to supervision by a
probation organisation and subject to conditions imposed by the court.
“According to the American Bar Associations ‘Standards Relating to
Probation’ (1970) the term probation meant, “ a sentence not
involving confinement which imposes conditions and retains authority
in the sentencing court to modify the conditions of sentence or to re-
sentence the offender if he violates the conditions”. Pigeon (1942)
treated probation as a form of disposition made by the court wherein
the offender instead of being committed to a penal or correctional
institution, was afforded the opportunity to live in the community and
regulated his own life under conditions imposed by the court and
under the supervision of a probation officer. A perusal of all these
definitions indicated that probation was principally used in four ways:
a. as a court Disposition it was a suspension of sentence subject to
supervision on certain conditions laid down by the court. b. As a status
it reflected the position of an offender sentenced to probation; the
status had implications different from that of either a free citizen or a
confined offender. c. As a system of corrections, or sub-system of
criminal justice administration, it referred to the agency or
organisation that administered the probation process for juvenile and
adult offenders. d. As a process it referred to the set of functions,
activities, and services that characterised the systems transactions with
the court, the offender, and the community. The process included
preparation of reports for the court, supervision of probationers, and
obtaining and providing services for them. A synthetic view of these
four ways in which probation was being currently used suggested that
probation presently was a process which provided the judge with an
alternative disposition that resulted in an improved status for the
offender within a sub-system of criminal justice system.

2. Advantages the advantages inherent in this ingenious method of

treatment were:
1. It made the offender realize that the criminal law had been a bit
lenient towards them in order to let them prove that the crime they
had committed was a mere accident and not the inseparable part
of their criminal disposition and that they needed a humanitarian
approach to make positive amends in their personality, behaviour,
attitude, and outlook towards life under conditions of benevolence
rather than those which tend to teach a lesson by providing them a
bitter dose of prison incarceration.

2. It made possible for certain offenders to remain within the

community and thus continue meeting their family duties and
obligations without posing any further danger to the protection
and safety of the society. The purpose was to treat such offenders
within the community and not beyond it.

3. It helped in averting the stigma of prison sentence in case of

offenders who were not really dangerous and deserved to be
saved from debilitating effects of prison incarceration.

4. It helped the community in experimenting a programme through

which it could change its errant human material into a potential
asset.

5. It was also help to the community in saving the expenditure on

maintaining a certain section of offenders population in the
prison, who could be better treated by less costly but equally, if
not more, effective methods of community based corrections.

3. Conclusion Probation avoids the shattering effect upon individual

personality which frequently follows imprisonment. Probation
keeps the man’s personality in its old moorings; it makes no
violent and sudden wrench in his daily habits; it does not destroy
his family relations, his contacts with his friends, and his
economic independence. All that is good and desirable in his old
habits is retained; every contact, interest, emotion and habit which
can be utilised to keep his relations with his community with in
the expected norm come automatically into play and become
powerful factors in straightening the individuals habit patterns
back to normal. The crime for which the man was arrested is not
dramatized and used as a reason for disrupting the rhythm of his
life.
BLOCK 6 - PRISON INDUSTRY

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA:

In India, probation received statutory recognition for the first time in 1898
through Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Under the
provision of this section, the first offender convicted of theft, dishonest
mis-appropriation or any other offence under the Indian Penal Code
punishable with not more than two years imprisonment could be released
on probation of good conduct at the discretion of the Court. Later, the
Children Act, 1908, also empowered the court to release certain offenders
on probation of good conduct. Similar provisions existed in the Children
Act, 1960 which were repealed consequent to passing of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 1986. This Act was further substituted by the Juvenile Justice
(Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The Central Government appointed a committee in 1916 to consider the

provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. Particularly, it suggested
revision of Section 562 and extension of its provisions to other cases also.

The scope of probation law was extended further by the legislation in

1923. Consequent to Indian Jail Reforms Committee’s Report (1919-20),
the first offenders were to be treated more liberally and could even be
released unconditionally after admonition. The first offenders were
classified under two categories, namely:

(i) Male adult offenders over twenty-one years of age; and

(ii) Young male adult offenders under twenty-one years of age and
female offenders of any age.

The release of offenders on probation could be extended not only to

offences under the Indian Penal Code but also to offences falling under
special enactments. To cope up with the extended probation, a number of
Remand Homes, Rescue Homes, Certified Schools and Industrial Schools
were established in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta
The Government of India in 1931, prepared a draft of Probation of
Offenders Bill and circulated it to the then Provincial Governments for
their views. However, the Bill could not be proceeded further due to pre-
occupation of the Provincial Governments. Later, the Government of India
in 1934, informed the local governments that there were no prospects of a
central legislation being enacted on probation and they were free to enact
suitable laws on the lines of the draft Bill.

Consequently some of the Provinces enacted probation laws which

assumed considerable importance because they introduced for the first
time provisions regarding pre-sentence enquiry report of probation officer,
supervision by paid and voluntary probation officer and compensation for
injury caused to a person by the offender’s delinquent act. The probation
laws enacted by Provinces, however, lacked uniformity.

After the Indian independence, certain concrete steps were initiated to

popularise probation as a correctional measure of treatment of offenders. A
Probation Conference was held in Bombay in 1952 on the advice of Dr.
Walter Reckless, the United Nations Technical Expert on Correctional
Services.

This Conference was a milestone in the progress of probation law in India.

The noted American criminologist, Dr. Walter Reckless addressed the
Conference as a U.N. technical expert and gave valuable suggestions on
Prison Administration in India. Consequently, All India Jail Manual
Committee was formed to review the working of Indian jails and suggest
measures for reform in the system.

The Committee in its Report of 1957 pointed out that there was no liaison
between the government, the probation personnel, the police, and the
prison administrators in implementation of the probation law. The
Committee also highlighted the need for a central law on probation with
greater emphasis on release of offenders on probation of good conduct so
that they are reclaimed as self-reliant members of society without being
subjected to deleterious effects of prison life.

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958:

The Probation of Offenders Act 1958 contains elaborate provisions

relating to probation of offenders, which are made applicable throughout
the country. The Act provides four different modes of dealing with
youthful and other offenders in lieu of sentence, subject to certain
conditions. These include:

(1) Release after admonition;

(2) Release on entering a bond on probation of good conduct with or

without supervision, and on payment by the offender the
compensation and costs to the victim if so ordered, the courts being
empowered to vary the conditions of the bond and to sentence and
impose a fine if he failed to observe the conditions of the bond;

(3) Persons under twenty-one years of age are not to be sentenced to

imprisonment unless the court calls for a report from the probation
officer or records reasons to the contrary in writing; and

(4) The person released on probation does not suffer a disqualification

attached to a conviction under any other law.

It must be stated that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are
not confined to juveniles alone, but extend to adults also. Again,
provisions of the Act are not only confined to offences committed under
the Indian Penal Code but they extend to offences under other special laws
such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954; the Customs Act, 1962; the Prevention of Black
Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,
1980; the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974, Narcotic Drugs &Psychotrophic Substances Act,
1985 etc.
In recent times, the emphasis is on the reformation and rehabilitation of the
offender as a self-sufficient and useful member of the society, without
subjecting him to the deleterious effects of jail life.

This relates to the measure of probation, which may be used by the courts
as an alternative and is increasingly being used.

Shock Probation

Shock probation is a sentencing strategy offered in some jurisdictions

to shock or introduces young offenders to the long-term realities of a
criminal career through a short-term visit to prison. Even though shock
probation is only offered by a few states, it can be an extremely helpful
alternative to a regular prison sentence.

The concept behind shock probation is to shock a defendant with the

reality of incarceration. Even though it is structurally very similar to a split
sentence, the requirements of shock probation are distinctly different. Like
a split sentence, a defendant is sentenced to a period of confinement.
Unlike a split sentence, however, a defendant serves a much shorter period
of time. After being sentenced, a defendant must a make a motion to be
brought back to the original trial court and to be placed on probation. This
motion and the hearing on the motion must occur within a relatively short
time after the defendant is sentenced and sent to prison, usually around six
months. Failure to file a motion in a timely manner can result in a
forfeiture of the right to ask for shock probation.

After receiving a timely filed motion, the prison authorities are required to
submit a report to the trial court telling the court whether or not the
defendant was compliant during the time he was in prison. A good
behavior report will improve a defendant's chance of receiving shock
probation. The court can either deny the motion (thereby ordering the
defendant to complete the balance of the sentence), or grant the motion
and place a defendant on straight probation. The decision to grant a shock
probation motion is completely within the trial court’s discretion-- as long
as the defendant is otherwise eligible to receive shock probation.
Shock Probation Eligibility

Only certain defendants can qualify for shock probation. Shock probation
is designed to assist first time or early career offenders. A defendant being
prosecuted under a career offender statute would not be eligible. However,
a defendant who had previously received a deferred sentence that did not
result in a final conviction could be eligible.

Shock probation is also meant to serve as a deterrent for lower level or

non-violent offenses. The idea is that if a defendant knows and gets a feel
of the eventual consequences of crime, then he will be deterred from
committing future crimes. Offenses that would qualify for shock probation
include drug, theft, and forgery type offenses. Shock probation is not
available for aggravated offenses like aggravated sexual assault or
aggravated robbery. Even though a defendant is eligible for a grant of
shock probation, he should visit with an attorney before filing the motion
to review the advantages and disadvantages of filing a shock motion.

Advantages

The first major advantage of a judge granting a defendant’s request for

shock probation is that the defendant is released from prison after a
relatively short time. However, a defendant doesn’t simply get to walk out
unfettered. After a motion for shock is granted, a defendant will be
expected to understand and follow all of the rules of a regular probation. If
a defendant does not follow the rules, he is returned to prison.

The second major advantage of shock probation is the effect of the

judgment on future enhancements. For example, in Texas, because the
effect of a grant of shock probation is to suspend the sentence, the
judgment will not be considered a final conviction for enhancement
purposes later. However, the shock probation will prevent a defendant
from later making an application for community supervision in a
subsequent prosecution.
Shock probation has some definite advantages. However, a defendant
should also consider his likely success while on probation and current
parole standards. On a low sentence, a defendant could potentially be
released on parole in the same amount of time it takes to get a motion for
shock probation granted. Depending on the level of supervision in a
particular jurisdiction, a defendant may find complying with parole
rules easier than complying with the requirements of community
supervision.

PRE-INVESTIGATION REPORT:

A presentence investigation report (PSIR) is a legal term referring to the

investigation into the history of person convicted of a crime before
sentencing to determine if there are extenuating circumstances which
should ameliorate the sentence or a history of criminal behaviour to
increase the harshness of the sentence. The PSIR has been said to fulfil a
number of purposes, including serving as a charging
document and exhibit proving criminal conduct, and is said to be akin to a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

SUPERVISION:

Probation is a court ordered disposition through which an adjudicated

offender is placed under the control, supervision, and care of the Agency.
The probationer must meet certain standards of conduct.

There are six types of probation supervision terms in Court-referred

matters:

 Probation Supervision: A term of supervision in which sentencing

follows a pre-sentence investigative (PSI) period and the submission
of a PSI report with sentencing recommendations to the Court. The
Court also can order a term of probation without the benefit of a PSI
report.
 Split Sentence: A term of supervision in which the Court orders an
offender remanded to a term of incarceration, followed by a period of
community-based, supervised probation.

 Interstate Compact Supervision: A probation sentence that has been

imposed by a Court in another jurisdiction, with courtesy supervision
being provided by CSOSA while the offender resides in the District of
Columbia. Probation cases that originate in the District but are being
supervised in other jurisdictions also must be monitored by CSOSA
until case expiration.

 Unsupervised Probation: A sentence imposed by the Court that allows

individuals to reside in the community without the active supervision
of a CSO. The Court may, at any time, exercise its authority and place
an offender on unsupervised probation, or return an unsupervised case
to active supervised probation status. As a rule, these cases are not
opened and assigned to a CSO unless the Court so directs. If the Court
so directs, these cases are placed in a monitored status, and the CSO is
to conduct monthly criminal background checks and notify the Court
of any findings.

 Civil Protection Orders (CPOs): A CPO is a civil order imposed by

the Court for twelve months to protect an individual from further
harassment or abuse by another individual.

 Deferred Sentencing Agreements (DSAs): A DSA allows a defendant

to enter a guilty plea in a domestic violence matter. In these cases, the
Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA or government) and the
defendant agree to continue sentencing for nine months with the
Court's approval.

REVOCATION:

Defendants caught (either by police or probation officers) violating a

condition of probation are subject to having their probation revoked (taken
away) and all or part of the original suspended jail or prison sentence
imposed. Because one typical condition of probation is to obey all laws, a
probationer who is rearrested on even a minor charge may be subject to
penalties for both the current arrest and the probation violation.

If a probation violation is discovered and reported, it is likely that the court

will conduct a probation revocation hearing. If the defendant violated
probation by breaking a law, the probation revocation hearing will
probably take place after the new offense has been disposed of. If the
violation was not a new criminal offense but nevertheless broke a
condition of probation (for instance, socializing with people the judge
prohibited the defendant from contacting), then the revocation hearing may
take place as soon as practicable after the violation is reported. Defendants
are entitled to written notification of the time, place, and reason for the
probation revocation hearing.

The revocation hearing isn't the same as a trial. The burden of proof for the
prosecution is typically not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Rather, it's
something less, such as having to prove that, "more likely than not," the
violation took place. Because the burden of proof is less than at a trial, a
probationer might face what could seem to be inconsistent results: If the
probation violation is the commission of a new crime and the probationer
is acquitted of that crime, he can nevertheless have his probation revoked.
In essence, probation is a privilege that can be lost more easily than one’s
initial freedom.

The Probation Revocation Hearing

A probation revocation hearing happens in court, without a jury. Both the

defense and prosecution may present evidence to show the judge why the
defendant should or should not be subjected to whatever penalty the judge
originally ordered, but suspended. The defendant is allowed counsel at this
hearing, but the judge does not have to follow strict rules of evidence.
Bargaining Over a Revocation

When a defendant arrested on new charges is found to be in violation of an

earlier probation order, the defense may negotiate a new plea bargain to
cover both cases in one package deal. This is especially common in busy
courts where calendars are backlogged.

Talk to a Lawyer

The law on probation may differ from one state to another. Practices may
even vary somewhat from one part of a state to another. And federal court
has its own set of rules. If you’re facing probation revocation, be sure to
consult an attorney experienced with the relevant law.

PAROLE:

Parole is a temporary release of a prisoner who agrees to certain conditions

before the completion of the maximum sentence period, originating from
the French parole ("voice", "spoken words"). The term became associated
during the Middle Ages with the release of prisoners who gave their word.

This differs greatly from amnesty or commutation of sentence in that

parolees are still considered to be serving their sentences, and may be
returned to prison if they violate the conditions of their parole. Conditions
of parole often include things such as obeying the law, refraining from
drug and alcohol use, avoiding contact with the parolee's victims,
obtaining employment and keeping required appointments with a parole
officer. Should the parolee have legal dependents, namely minor children,
he is also required to show cause of being a dedicated caregiver. A specific
type of parole is medical parole or compassionate release which is the
release of prisoners on medical or humanitarian grounds. Some justice
systems, such as the United States federal system, place defendants
on supervised release after serving their entire prison sentence; this is not
the same as parole. In Colorado, parole is an additional punishment after
the entire prison sentence is served, called "mandatory parole".
Provision and Rules:

The Prisons Act of 1894 being Act No. 9 of 1894 has defined the
furlough system and the parole system under Sections 5(A) and 5(B) of the
Prisons Act, 1894 which reads as follows: “5(A) ‘Furlough system‘means
the system of releasing prisoners in jail on furlough in accordance with the
rules for the time being in force.” “5(B) ‘Parole system‘means
the system of releasing prisoners in Jail on parole, by suspension of their
sentences in accordance with the rules for the time being in force.” 6.
Pursuant to the powers conferred by Clauses 5 and 28 of Section 59 of the
Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894) in its application to the State.

“The parole and furlough rules are part of the penal and prison system with
a view to humanise the prison system. Those rules enable the prisoner to
obtain his release and to return to the outside world for a short prescribed
period. The objects of such a release of prisoner can be read from para 101
of the report submitted by the All India Jail Manual Committee as also the
objects mentioned in Model Prison Manual. These objects are:

Parole is essentially an executive function and instances of release of

détentes on parole were literally unknown until this Court and some of the
High Courts in India in recent years made orders of release on parole on
humanitarian considerations. Historically ‘parole’ is a concept known to
military law and denotes release of a prisoner of war on promise to
return. Parole has become an integral part of the English and
American systems of criminal justice intertwined with the evolution of
changing attitudes of the society towards crime and criminals. As a
consequence of the introduction of parole into the penal system, all fixed
term sentences of imprisonment of above 18 months are subject to release
on licence, that is, parole after a third of the period of sentence has been
served. In those countries, parole is taken as an act of grace and not as a
matter of right and the convict prisoner may be released on condition that
he abides by the promise. It is a provisional release from confinement but
is deemed to be a part of the imprisonment. Release on parole is a wing of
the reformative process and is expected to provide opportunity status of
the prisoner. Rules are framed providing supervision by parole authorities
of the convicts released on parole and in case of failure to perform the
promise, the convict released on parole is directed to surrender to custody.

Parole in India, Selection and Supervision of Offenders ParoledIn India,

the grant of Parole is largely governed by the rules made under the Prison
Act, 1894 and Prisoner Act, 1900. Each of the States has its own parole
rules, which have minor variations with each other. There are two types of
parole- custody and regular. The custody parole is granted in emergency
circumstances like death in the family, serious illness or marriage in the
family Regular Parole is allowed for a maximum period of one month,
except in special circumstances, to convicts who have served at least one
year in prison. It is granted on certain grounds [4] such as: Serious Illness
of a family member Accident or Death of a family member Marriage of a
member of the family Delivery of Child by wife of the convict Maintain
family or social ties Serious damage to life or property of the family of
convict by natural calamities Pursue filing of a Special Leave Petition.
Certain categories of convicts are of convicts are not eligible for being
released on parole like prisoners involved in offences against the State, or
threats to national security, non-citizens of India etc. People convicted of
murder and rape of children or multiple murders etc. are also exempted
except at the discretion of the granting authority. Selection for parole is
based on two separate considerations. First one, more or less arbitrary
because it is usually fixed by statute. The second entirely discretionary
involving a decision and a calculated risk by the parole board. The First
consideration is the offender's parole eligibility, the second his suitability
for parole. To these considerations which are explicit, there may be added
others which are no less decisive because they are less tangible. Parole
cannot be granted to every type of offender. The purpose of parole is to
bring about a change in the behaviour of the person sentenced and also at
extraordinary circumstances such as serious illness or death of near
relatives, death of the kith and kin and so forth. The offender paroled has
to be kept under close surveillance by the police so that he does not relapse
into the commission of crime. Even though the paroled offender is not in
physical confinement, for all practical purposes he is a person sentenced
and every of his movement of him has to be closely monitored so that his
associations and his activities which perpetrate crime can be mitigated.

AFTERCARE:

After- care of released prisoners as one of the most effective means to curb
recidivism. An offender, immediately after release from prison, has to
confront with a lot of social and personal problems, such as loss of family
contacts, lack of suitable employment opportunities, social stigma of
prison sentence and so on. It is for a solution of these serious problems that
a discharged offender needs community’s sympathy, help and care,
without which he will, in all probability, find no other alternative but to
resort to crime. Absence of after care, therefore, gives rise to recidivism.22
“After-care”, to quote the Model Prison Manual “is the released persons”
convalescence. It is the bridge which can carry him from the artificial and
restricted environment of institutional custody, from doubts and
difficulties, hesitations and handicaps to satisfactory. Citizenship,
resettlement and to ultimate rehabilitation in the free community.23 the
objects of after care service, as stated in Model Prison Manual are

A. to extend help, guidance, counselling, support and protection to all

released prisoners whenever necessary,

B. to help a released person to overcome his mental, social and

economical difficulties,

C. to help in the removal of any social stigma that may attach to the
inmate or his family because of incarceration,
D. to impress upon the individual the need to adjust his habits, attitudes,
approaches and value schemes on a national appreciation of social
responsibilities and obligations and also of requirements of
community living,

E. to help the individual to make smooth physical, mental, social and

vocational adjustments with his post release environment including his
family, neighbourhood, work group and community and,

F. to assist the individual in functioning as a self-dependent and self-

restraint socially useful citizen and in the process of his ultimate social
rehabilitation.

Nature and Scope

I T is a hard fact that society in India has not yet fully realised the reasons
for recidivism, and our people have yet to learn that it is not a
psychological aptitude for crime in a particular man that leads the ex-
convict back to the prison gates. On the other hand it is far too often the
absence of a fair opportunity to enter into a suitable and honest life after
release that leads the ex-convict to offend against society again. While in
jail the prisoner gets cut off from old habits and associations. He is marked
with disgrace which prevents him from normal living. He is cast forth
abruptly and without support to face all the difficulties of life and all the
seductions of liberty. Hence it is that the need for an agency to take care of
the discharged prisoner for such time as may be absolutely necessary
before he starts life over again has become generally recognized. In India,
the Prison Department of the United Provinces can rightly be styled the
pioneer of the movement to aid the prisoner, inasmuch as a fund for aiding
released prisoners called "The Aid To Discharged Prisoners' Fund" was
started there in 1893 the first of its kind in the country. Great leaders of
Indian and Asiatic thought have preached the obligation of helping the
imprisoned and restoring them to normal life. But the carrying out of this
preaching has been left to the individual's charitable instinct. With the
people of India such assistance has been more or less a question of pity or
religious sentiment, rather than a duty to be performed for the individual
prisoner. Even in western countries it was not until the eighteenth century
that society recognized its obligation to those whom it had punished in
order to protect itself.

Despite the usefulness of after-care service, there has been very little
progress in this major area of correctional activities in India. Some
separate efforts to render a part of his service to the released offenders,
have, however, been made in some of the states. From the study the
Research Scholar finds that the actual after care work that has been done
so far in India “falls far too short of the requirements”. Lack of funds,
ignorance of the psychological and economic basis of crimes, and general
apathy are the major factors standing in the way.

HALF-WAY HOUSES:

A halfway house is an institution that allows people with physical, mental,

and emotional disabilities, or those with criminal backgrounds, to learn (or
relearn) the necessary skills to re-integrate into society. As well as serving
as a residence, halfway houses provide social, medical, psychiatric,
educational, and other similar services.

Organization

 Correctional Services Act number 111, of 1998 and its amendments

states that the National Commissioner may allow community
organizations, Non Governmental Organization and religious
denominations , or organizations to interact with sentenced offenders
in order to facilitate the rehabilitation and integration of the offenders
into the community Section 13 (7)(a)

 One of the conditions of offenders to be released on parole is that they

must have a monitorable address and a support system. The address
must be confirmed by a correctional official.
 The then Minister mandated the Department to start a process of
establishing half way houses.

 Relationship are managed through Service Level Agreement.

 To enhance the utilization of halfway houses as an alternative to non

custodial sentencing.

 To invite the Non Profit Organization to participate in the process of

halfway house.

 Halfway house – Community based residential facilities for

probationers and parolees without monitorable address or support
system.

 Support system- This refers to next of kin or extended family and

friends which constitute a conducive environment outside a
correctional center for a parolee or probationer not to reoffend or
return to the life of crime without any extra burden of abuse one to
violate his condition or go back to the life of crime or reoffend.

 NPO- Non Profit Organization

 Partnership- A regulated relationship between the Department of

Correctional Services and any organization that need to assist the
Department in the rehabilitation of offenders.

 Desk top research was conducted and experiential visit was

undertaken to international countries.

 Halfway house shall not be an extension correctional centres

 Parolees to be involved in structured programmes

 Partnership Was The Option Approved

 Halfway houses should provide reintegration and rehabilitation

through treatment of probationer and parolees
 Assess criminogenic needs (dynamic risk factors) of parolees using
research based instruments, with the goal of programming to diminish
needs

 Programming should account for individual offender characteristics

that interfere with or facilitate an offender’s ability and motivation to
learn

 Individual programming should occur in the context of a larger

behaviour management plan developed for each offender, which
includes the priority and sequence of treatment programmes, the
means for measuring treatment gains and the goals for a crime-free
lifestyle

 Research indicates that cognitive behavioural treatments are more

effective than any other form of correctional intervention because
these treatment types address criminal thinking and behaviours in
offenders

 Programming should include structure or capacity for rewarding

positive behaviour in addition to punishing negative behaviour

 Offenders immediate family members and the social service agencies

in the community - to which the offender will be returning – must be
involved

 All programmes should have identified outcomes and integrated

methods for measuring progress towards objectives

Benefits of Halfway Houses:

 Provides monitorable address and support system and serves as a

critical component of the correctional process

 Studies have shown that halfway houses do not contribute to increased

crime rates or to decreased property values
 Assists in the re-integration of offenders back into the community –
recidivism rates are low among offenders who are released back into
the community gradually

 Success rates are good for offenders who are released back into the
community through halfway houses

 Even among offenders who do not successfully complete periods of

conditional release, the majority of offenders fail because they violate
a condition of the release

ROLE:

 It is a replacement of a family or a home within the community.

 To cater for parolees and probationers without support system or

monitorable address.

 To enhance the process of successful reintegrating parolees and

probationers

 To act as a bridge between the correctional centre and the community

for those who do not have support systems

 To provide scheduled programmes that prepares parolees and

probationers for employment.

 To network through NPO s with various industries for employment.

 To instil family values to parolees and probationers correctional

centres.

 To assist in enhancing moral regeneration to parolees as part of their

preparation for successful reintegration

Significance

If a person is mentally ill in India, he or she will be hard put to get proper
help in time and will also face a lot of social taboos. When that person
happens to be a prisoner, he is doubly condemned. This is why the Delhi
high court has issued a number of directions to the state government to
expedite setting up halfway houses for mentally ill prisoners so that they
get treatment and are able to eventually reintegrate into society.

Now this is easier said than done, given that in the case of the mentally ill,
whether prisoners or otherwise, neither society nor their families tend to
welcome them back. This makes it imperative for the state to give them
some sort of safety net beyond halfway houses.

As of now, according the National Crime Records Bureau, there are 5,394
mentally ill prisoners out of a total of 418,536 people in jails. The
condition of women prisoners is especially pitiful as they are often left to
the mercy of male wardens and other inmates. Mental illnesses are
explained away as someone acting up until it is too late.

Psychological illnesses too are considered odd behaviour and not as real
health issues in many cases.

India has a woeful lack of qualified mental health professionals despite a

high incidence of such illnesses. In the case of prisoners, the conditions in
most jails are such that they exacerbate existing mental illnesses. There are
hardly any counsellors or psychiatrists to conduct evaluations on prisoners.

The court’s directive comes after an appeal by woman convicted of

murdering her husband and step-daughter and who was later found to be
schizophrenic. In fact, those with mental illnesses are often subject to
vicious harassment within jails leading to their condition worsening.

There is no reason why, with proper treatment, a mentally ill prisoner

cannot be rehabilitated into society. For this, we need much more
awareness that mental illness, like other diseases, is treatable and curable.

In many mental health institutions, patients are manhandled and abused

simply because their behaviour is considered deviant. A priority has to be
training mental health professionals to deal with both inmates and others in
a scientific and humane manner. Nearly 60 million Indians suffer for one
or other form of mental disorder and yet just a paltry 0.06% of the health
budget is spent on this.

The halfway house proposed by the Delhi court should be a template for
other states where mentally ill prisoners tend to languish in jails or when
released are left on the streets for want of medical assistance and
rehabilitation.

ROLE OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES IN PREVENTION OF

CRIME:

The importance of the prevention of delinquency and crime in India is

examined as a primary social need, a vital police function, and as the
responsibility of public volunteer agencies working in cooperation with the
police.

While police and public responsibilities for preventing crime and

delinquency were signalled in the 19th century, the Indian police began to
update and refine their preventative procedures only after international
conferences on the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders in the
1950's. Police prevention operates on the assumption that uniformed police
presence will deter criminal and that prompt detection and punishment will
prove to the criminal that crime does not pay. To make protection of
society meaningful and the prevention of delinquency and crime a
dynamic process, public participation in all aspects of the program become
absolutely essential. A program for effective community self-protection
will depend largely on systematic two-way communication between the
public and the police, as well as their cooperation in an intensive and
broad-based study of the local crime problem. As removal of the causes of
crime from the individual personality and the environment can alone
provide a lasting solution, individuals and community organizations
should contribute toward easing tensions and resolving conflicts, both
internal and external, and building up of resistances. People can help in
their own neighbourhoods through vigilance and surveillance with regard
to strangers, suspects, and known criminals and through education of the
community regarding measures designed to safeguard the public peace and
protect life and property. The Children's Aid Societies in Madras and
Bombay are good examples of community groups in action, as are Citizens
Committees in many urban areas. Furthermore, preventive work must be
carried through from the predelinquency stage; through the pre-trial,
conviction, and correctional stages, and on to the aftercare stage. An
evaluation of the delinquency and crime prevention efforts in different
countries might help to provide certain lessons in formulating plans for
community-police crime prevention efforts. No references are supplied.

REHABILITATION:

Need, importance and services in India.

Rehabilitation policies are those that intend to reform criminal offenders

rather than punish them the concept of rehabilitation rests on the
assumption that criminal behaviour is caused by some factor. This
perspective does not deny that people make choices to break the law, but it
does assert that these choices are not a matter of pure "free will." Instead,
the decision to commit a crime is held to be determined, or at least heavily
influenced, by a person's social surroundings, psychological development,
or biological makeup. People are not all the same and thus free to express
their will but rather are different. These "individual differences" shape how
people behave, including whether they are likely to break the law. When
people are characterized by various "criminogenic risk factors"such as a
lack of parental love and supervision, exposure to delinquent peers, the
internalization of antisocial values, or an impulsive temperament they are
more likely to become involved in crime than people not having these
experiences and traits.

The rehabilitation model "makes sense" only if criminal behaviour is

caused and not merely a freely willed, rational choice. If crime were a
matter of free choices, then there would be nothing within particular
individuals to be "fixed" or changed. But if involvement in crime is caused
by various factors, then logically re-offending can be reduced if
correctional interventions are able to alter these factors and how they have
influenced offenders. For example, if associations with delinquent peer’s
cause youths to internalize crime-causing beliefs (e.g., "it is okay to
steal"), then diverting youths to other peer groups and changing these
beliefs can inhibit their return to criminal behavior.or segregate them from
the greater community.

Sometimes rehabilitation is said to embrace a "medical model." When

people are physically ill, the causes of their illness are diagnosed and then
"treated." Each person's medical problems may be different and the
treatment will differ accordingly; that is, the medical intervention is
individualized. Thus, people with the same illness may, depending on their
personal conditions (e.g., age, prior health), receive different medicines
and stay in the hospital different lengths of time. Correctional
rehabilitation shares the same logic: Causes are to be uncovered and
treatments are to be individualized. This is why rehabilitation is also
referred to as "treatment."

Correctional and medical treatments are alike in one other way: they
assume that experts, scientifically trained in the relevant knowledge on
how to treat their "clients," will guide the individualized treatment that
would take place. In medicine, this commitment to training physicians in
scientific expertise has been institutionalized, with doctors required to
attend medical school. In corrections, however, such professionalization
generally is absent or only partially accomplished.

The distinctiveness of rehabilitation can also be seen by contrasting it with

three other correctional perspectives that, along with rehabilitation, are
generally seen as the major goals of corrections. The first
goal, retribution or just deserts, is distinctive in its own right because it is
no utilitarian; that is, it is not a means to achieving some end in this case,
the reduction of crime but rather is seen as an end in and of itself. The
purpose of correctional sanctions is thus to inflict a punishment on the
offender so that the harm the offender has caused will be "paid back" and
the scales of justice balanced. In this case, punishment inflicting pain on
the offender is seen as justified because the individual used his or her free
will to choose to break the law. The second goal, deterrence, is utilitarian
and asserts that punishing offenders will cause them not to return to crime
because they will have been taught that "crime does not pay." Note that
deterrence assumes that offenders are rational, in that increasing the cost of
crime usually through more certain and severe penalties will cause
offenders to choose to "go straight" out of fear that future criminality will
prove too painful. This is called specific deterrence. When other people in
society refrain from crime because they witness offenders' punishment and
fear suffering a similar fate, this is called general deterrence. Finally, the
third goal, incapacitation, makes no assumption about offenders and why
they committed crimes. Instead, it seeks to achieve the utilitarian goal of
reducing crime by "caging" or incarcerating offenders. If behind bars and
thus "incapacitated," crime will be impossible because the offender is not
free in society where innocent citizens can be criminally victimized.

In comparison, rehabilitation differs from retribution, but is similar to

deterrence and incapacitation, in that it is a utilitarian goal, with the utility
or benefit for society being the reduction of crime. It fundamentally differs
from the other three perspectives, however, because these other goals
make no attempt to change or otherwise improve offenders. Instead, they
inflict pain or punishment on offenders either for a reason (retribution in
order to "get even" or deterrence in order to "scare people straight") or as a
consequence of the penalty (incapacitation involves placing offenders in
an unpleasant living situation, the prison). In contrast, rehabilitation seeks
to assist both offenders and society. By treating offenders, they hope to
give them the attitudes and skills to avoid crime and live a productive life.
At times, this attempt to help offenders exposes rehabilitation to the charge
that it "coddles criminals." This view is short-sighted, however, because
correctional rehabilitation's focus is not simply on lawbreakers but also on
protecting society: by making offenders less criminal, fewer people will be
victimized and society will, as a result, be safer.

PRE RELEASE AND PREMATURE RELEASE:

Forms of early release Most countries in the world have mechanisms in

place that allow prisoners to be released before they have completed their
full prison terms, but these are not always conceived of as alternatives to
imprisonment. Some forms of early release, such as parole, are often not
used in developing countries because of a lack of resources. A strategy to
develop such alternatives must seek to incorporate such mechanisms, for
early release potentially has considerable practical importance in reducing
prison numbers and in ensuring that imprisonment is used as sparingly as
possible. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that power to grant early
release is not abused. Early release can take a number of forms. These vary
from measures that range from relaxations of the prison regime that allow
the prisoner a limited amount of access to free society through conditional
release in the community to early unconditional release. Only conditional
release in the community is genuinely a matter of putting something in
place of imprisonment, but all these strategies are relevant to the wider
objective of reducing the use of imprisonment. The Tokyo Rules also
adopt a wide-ranging approach to this issue. The official Commentary on
the Tokyo Rules observes that the Rules relating to the post-sentencing
stage deal with “measures to reduce the length of prison sentences or to
offer alternatives to enforcing prison sentences.”39 Rule 9.2 lists “post-
sentencing dispositions” that should be available to achieve these
objectives. They are: Furlough and halfway houses; Work or education
release; various forms of parole; Remission; Pre-release and Premature
Release. Strictly speaking, the first two of these are not fully alternatives to
imprisonment. Prisoners who are granted furloughs, that is, short periods
of leave from prison in the course of terms of imprisonment, or who live in
halfway houses before being released into the community, remain
prisoners in terms of the law and subject to the rules of prison discipline.
Similarly, prisoners who are temporarily allowed out of prison to work or
for educational purposes do not lose their “prisoner” status. These
dispositions are still of value in allowing prisoners to improve themselves
and in easing their transition back to the community. See the box below for
an example of prisoners living in open prisons.

Pre release

Pardon or Pre mature release, which ordinarily means release following

the setting aside of the conviction or sentence, is also a form of
unconditional release. It is usually an act of grace and favour by the head
of state. A pardon takes two forms. In one, a pardon releases the offender
and entirely sets aside his conviction and sentence. The other form, also
known as amnesty, moves forward the release date of an offender or class
of offenders. A head of state would also order an amnesty. This
terminology is not fixed, though, and pardon and amnesty are used
interchangeably.

All Victorian prisons help prisoners to prepare for release through a range
of support and transition programs. Visiting community service
organisations and other government departments offer prisoners assistance
with a range of pre-release matters including identification, housing and
accommodation, finance and Centrelink, employment, legal matters and
medical assistance.

Identification

Prisoners being released need to ensure they have current identification

documents (ID). Identification is required to access a range of services
including Centrelink and Medicare and to get a job, open a bank account
and more. Prior to release, prisoners are assisted to apply for identity
documents such as a birth certificates, licence renewals and proof-of-age
cards.
Housing and Accommodation

Many prisoners being released experience issues with housing and

homelessness on release. Public and social housing resources are limited,
in high demand and have long waiting lists. Support is available in prison
from visiting housing workers who can provide information about housing
options and make referrals to housing support services on release.
Prisoners are advised to begin considering housing options well before
leaving prison.

Finance & Centrelink

Centrelink Prison Liaison Officers visit prisons to assess prisoner’s

eligibility for Australian Government payments and services upon release.
Some prisoners being released may be eligible for a crisis payment.

Employment

Prisoners are provided with information about employment agencies and

services.

Legal matters

Prisoners get help to access legal support and advice before they leave
prison so outstanding legal matters are addressed. Matters may include
unpaid debts, fines and warrants, intervention orders, and family and
custody matters.

Alcohol & other drugs

Prisoners requiring treatment for substance misuse can talk to prison health
staff to arrange access to treatment in the community.

Medical needs

The health staff will develop a discharge summary for the prisoner to take
with them when they leave prison. If a prisoner has an appointment with a
specialist in the public health system that is to occur after they are released
from custody, information on the appointment will be provided as part of
the discharge summary. Health staff may also develop a discharge plan for
the prisoner to support them to access healthcare in the community.

Community Correctional Services

Prisoners who are released under a parole order are given information
about their order and the Community Correctional Services location they
will report to. Prior to discharge, the prison will arrange an induction
appointment for the prisoner with a supervising community corrections
officer.

Transport from prison

For prisoners who are not being collected by family or friends, the prison
may help with transport to the nearest train or bus station.

Personal property

Prisoners are provided with information about how to collect clothes,

valuable and monies from the prison after release. The prison will only
release property at certain times – people wishing to collect property must
call the prison in advance to make arrangements.

PRE MATURE RELEASE

Remission or Pre release, in which a prisoner is released unconditionally

before the end of the sentence, is a form of unconditional release.
Remission is usually awarded automatically after the offender has served a
fixed proportion of a sentence, but it may also be a fixed period that is
deducted from a sentence. Sometimes remission is made dependent on
good behaviour in prison. It can be limited or forfeited in part or whole if
the prisoner does not behave appropriately or commits a disciplinary
offence.

Prisoners get remissions periodically for good conduct and work. Special
remissions are also given for specific special services. The sentences are
reviewed from time to time according to various rules and the prisoners are
released before time if they satisfy the prescribed conditions.

Judiciary, NHRC and several states have framed guidelines for premature
release. The information is in a state of disarray. There is no body of
knowledge that comprehensively looks at the guidelines. Most guidelines
consider terminally ill prisoners as eligible for remission. In Layman
Naskar, the Supreme Court listed a out a few questions which are relevant
for considering premature release: (i) Whether the offence is an individual
act of crime without affecting the society at large (ii) Whether there is any
chance of future recurrence of committing the crime (iii)Whether the
convict has lost potential for committing the crime (iv)Whether there is
any fruitfulness of purpose for confining the convict anymore (v) What is
the socio economic condition of the convicts family. Premature release has
been recognized as one of the facets of the human rights of prisoners. The
National Human Rights Commission had taken up this issue in a couple of
instances. The commission formulated guidelines for release because
various representations were made to the commission on the non-
uniformity of standards applied by state governments when using the
power of remission.31 the commission envisaged setting up of a sentence
review board which would consider applications for release. The
commission set down guidelines for the sentence review board to decide
on remissions which are similar to the Laxman Naskarguidelines.
Importantly, the commission observed that within the category of prisoners
under 433A, a reasonable classification can be made on the basis of
magnitude, brutality and gravity of the offence. Further, (i) the total period
of imprisonment should not go beyond 20 years, including remissions. (ii)
Some category of prisoners shall be considered for remission only after 20
years. Even in such cases, the total period should not exceed 25 years. E.g.
persons convicted for murder with rape, murder with dacoity; persons
whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment etc.
Convicts who have been imprisoned for life for murder in heinous cases
such as murder with rape, murder with dacoity, murder involving an
offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, murder for dowry,
murder of a child below 14 years of age, multiple murder, murder
committed after conviction while inside the jail, murder during parole,
murder in a terrorist incident, murder in smuggling operation, murder of a
public servant on duty32 (iii) Other male prisoners, not covered by
433A,should be entitled to release after 10 years of actual imprisonment,
without remissions. In the case of female prisoners, 7 years of
imprisonment is sufficient. The 2003 directives had removed one directive
in the 1999 directions. This direction had made some prisoners ineligible
for premature release. The Bureau for Police Research and Development
released a Model Prison Manual in 2003. A chapter was devoted to
premature release. It was suggested that premature release and remission
should be used as incentives for self – discipline. Other important points
for consideration in that manual are: (i) Cases of women offenders
sentenced for infanticide should be reviewed without delay and if needed,
they must be sent to voluntary organizations (ii) Non-habitual male,
female and adolescent offenders should be eligible for remission on
completion of a minimum term (iii) Old (above 65 years of age) and infirm
offenders would be eligible (iv) Offenders suffering from incurable
diseases would be eligible. (v) Applications can be made before the review
board several times (vi) there should be a body for monitoring the
activities of the review board.

References for MCCJ 15 Penology and Correctional Administration

1. Arrigo, B., & Milovanovic, D. (2010). Revolution in penology:

Rethinking the society of captives. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Crow, I. (2001). The treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.
London: SAGE

2. Scott, D. (2008). Penology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

3. C Lerner, K., & Lerner, B. (2006). Crime & punishment: Essential
primary sources. Detroit, MI: Thomas Gale.

4. Miethe, T., & Lu, H. (2005). Punishment: A comparative historical

perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Chockalingam K. (1993) Issues in Probation in India, Madras

University Publications, Madras.