Penology

Sir Hyder Ali Memon CRIMINOLOGY-2 PENOLOGY
Subject of Study
Penology refers to the general science of punishment As: a scientific discipline, a subject
of study and a topic of education it has evolved within the science of criminal law.
Penology deals primarily with the criminal punishment i.e. the punishment inflicted for a
culpable act defined as crime by legal provisions. Penology is a section of penal sciences,
together with the (dogmatic) science of substantive criminal law, the science of law of
criminal proceedings, the science of criminal executive law and penitentiary law, the
science of crime detection and criminology, and criminal and penitentiary policy.
The name of the discipline comes from the Latin poena (‘punishment') and from the
Greek logos (meaning, among all, 'knowledge' and `reason'). Thus, penology may be
defined as the ‘systematic knowledge of punishment’. Its findings are important both for
criminal law and for general considerations on punishment in social sciences and
humanities. Penology sees punishment as an institutionalized and complex process of
legal and social nature (i.e. legal and social institution) which may take various
organizational forms. In such context, criminal punishment means the process of
intentional, legal and social condemnation and of intentional causing of objectively
measurable personal affliction, which has been legally defined, decided by judgment of
an independent court in the name of the legal and social system (State), and which
consists in official, organized deprivation of goods of a person who, in the opinion of the
court, would presumably cause illegal prejudice to such System, by voluntary violation of
sanctioned norms which provide for the existence of crime and which correlate with a
specific penalty. In penology, the fulfillment of criminal punishment (actualization)
starts with the announcement of the valid judgment and lasts until the end of its execution
process (full actualization). However, penology is equally interested in the stage of
criminal proceedings and its social repercussions to be called "the potentiality of
punishment", i.e. in research on legal and social aspects of influencing social reality by
official actions intended to accomplish the administration of individually defined criminal
punishment, i.e. actions which have been taken since the opening of the proceedings ad
personam. In penological sense, the ultimate function of criminal punishment is to
reintegrate a shaken legal and social system. In this perspective, the influence of
1
punishment ceases to exist only when legally tangible and socially and individually vital
effects of punishment process come to an end.
At present, the expression "penology" covers:
1) Research on social consequences of punishment (punishment functions);
2) Analysis of theoretical aspects and practical experiences in internal mechanisms

of the functioning of criminal justice, in particular prisons;
3) Theoretical research on punishment grounds, i.e. axiology, ideology,

rationalization and philosophy of punishment, substantiations of sentences and
punishment execution.
As a result of such polymorphic research interests, penology, depending on the research

and theoretical approach dominating in a given country, at a given time, has come closer
to:
a) Philosophical Reflections on Punishment It differs however by drawing in its

analyses on the science of criminal law (both its theory and dogma tics), general
works of social sciences (sociology) and the results of empirical studies;
b) Anglo—Saxon approach of Criminal Justice Studies (or German Sanktions

forschung) or Polish broad penitentiary sciences, i.e. legal, sociological and pedagogical
studies on the functioning of criminal justice, which penology understands in a broader
ideological and philosophical context. In recent literature of the subject, a specific weight
has been given to interdisciplinary legal and social research which integrates past works
in penology. The aim of those studies is to analyze and find theoretical synthesis of
criminal, philosophical, social, cultural, political and institutional conditions for
punishment and criminal policy. Such studies are defined as culturally integrated
penology.
Historical Overview
Any act of affliction caused to the human being has always required substantiation.
That is why it has always been sought to give a specific justification to
punishment understood as a general legal and social practice and a case—based,
specific action. The reasons for punishment, while discussed on specific case
2
basis, always draw on general axiological foundations of the society, reflections on

the good and the evil, morality, rationality, rightfulness, the vision of the human being
and social order. Reflections on punishment, and specifically on criminal punishment, merge
several general questions on the human being and society, and such discussions have
been present since time immemorial in religion, in writings of philosophers and
messages of artists. However, systematic penological studies developed as a result of
attempted reforms of criminal justice system and of the execution of penalties
undertaken but in 18 th century. The aim of the reformers was to replace the
punishment practice based on retaliation rhetoric with rational ideals of social
rehabilitation and crime prevention. Their postulated and implemented changes
aimed at grounding a rationally devised, comprehensive criminal and penitentiary
policy on those enlightened foundations. The works of the 1e century reformers of
criminal law and prison system—Cesare Beccaria, John Howard or Benjamin
Bentham, to name but a few symbolical figures, were essentially sociological and
philosophical penological studies, even if the expression itself was not used at that
time. Only later, did dogmatic works prevail over reforming reflections of social and
philosophical nature. Modern dogmatics, which for the sake of research balance, saw
the need to set separate social studies of punishment, i.e. future penology, developed
particularly from the works by Anzelm Feuerbach, dated at the turn of the 18 th and
19th century. Penology, as a separate field of investigation and lecture , has also
been shaped by practical discussions on the organization of the execution of penalty
of imprisonment. Such reflections were pursued within prison studies carried out
since the beginning of the 19 th century, and studies on practical programs of
influencing the convicted, which was an emerging idea at that time. These studies
were later jointly named with the expression of penitentiary sciences. We may
assume that in modern times, as in the Antiquity (e.g. in works by Plato and
Aristotle) social and philosophical reflections on punishment preceded practical
discussions on criminal law and on procedures and rituals of punishment execution.
Historically, punishment was first studied as social phenomenon and philosophical
dilemma, and penology became a separate field of research and of lecture only as a
result of the emergence of specialist discussions in criminal law dogmatics and
3
practically oriented penitentiary studies. It was but due to the development and
institutionalization of the science of (dogmatic) criminal law and to the
professionalization of penalties (imprisonment) execution, together with the
subjugation of the process, at least partially, to scientific rigor that the need
appeared to separate penology as a subject of research and lecture . Since then
any research on punishment as social phenomenon and philosophical dilemma
would be carried out as but one more contribution to general social, philosophical and
legal thinking, and more and more often stimulated by the needs of modem science
of criminal law and penitentiary system.
Modern science of criminal law, together with criminal policy and penitentiary
science, which were in the 19th century emerging disciplines, needed solid theoretical
grounds built on the accumulated knowledge of social sciences, legal sciences and
humanities, institutionalized at that time at universities. Such knowledge was, to
some extent, provided through lectures and publications of penology - a more or less
distinct field of study since approximately half of the 19 th century, and through the
lecture of dogmatic criminal law and prison sciences.
However, since the end of the 19th century the influence of penology on
criminal law became somehow limited due to the rapid development of positivist
studies in etiology and phenomenonology of crime, i.e. in criminal anthropology and
criminology. While those sciences had an important impact on the functioning of
justice and its specific institutions, including the development of punishment
organizational forms, they did challenge the very ideological foundations and the
rationality of criminal punishment discourse, and thus the identity of penology.
They grew in influence in between—war period, and became dominant in three post
war decades, which had significantly impaired the development of penology. The
dominant positivist paradigm weakening in the seventies of the 20th century had a
negative impact on the condition of criminal and penitentiary policies as they were
losing solid scientific foundation. According to theoreticians, since that time, penal
sciences have been undergoing a serious cognitive and political crisis and loosing
unequivocally established legitimacy. Such condition has contributed to the revival
of penological studies and thinking since the end of the 20th century.
4
In Poland, the first handbook of criminal law had been

w r i t t e n i n 1830, Warsaw University by Romuald Hube, and it discussed
criminal punishment from penological perspective, i.e. as a social institution
(prison). Its substantiation and duration was eclectically associated with Hegelian
dialectical science of the nature of social life and the State , interpreted in the context
of catholic thinking , on the one hand, and with practical considerations on criminal
and penitentiary policy, in the spirit of Cesare Beccaria and John Howard, on the
other. At a later date, many prominent Polish scientists integrated penological
questions into their lectures on criminal law. We may quote here such figures as
Stanislaw Budziriski, professor at the Warsaw School of Economics (known also in
humanities as the translator of works by G o e t h e , S c h i l l e r , P u s h k i n a n d
L e r m o t o v ) , Wa c l a w M a k o w s k i , p r o f e s s o r at Warsaw University and
senator of the Second Polish Republic.
Yet, we should mention first of all Juliusz Makarewicz, the most prominent Polish
representative of the criminal law science in the 20th century, a leading co — author
of the Polish Criminal Code of 1931 (named also Lex Makarewicz). Makarewicz
wrote a penological work on historical and anthropological genesis of criminal law
institutions, entitled "Einführung in die Philosophie des Strafrechts out
Entwicklungsgeschichtlicher Grundlage" and published in Stuttgart in 1906. Its
Polish translation was published only in 2010, after more than one hundred years since
its first German edition. Some would consider the edition date of this penological study
as the beginning of the independent modern penology in Poland.
In Anglo – Saxon literature, the beginnings of penology as

scientific are associated with two distinct tendencies.
Firstly, its development is thought to be stimulated by the reformist,

humanitarian penitentiary thinking, and John Howard as a key figure.
Secondly, its emergence is considered to stem from the development of

modern criminal and penitentiary policy based on liberal utilitarianism,
which aimed at the establishment of the foundations for socially and
economically rational management of the society.
5
In common view, the leading representative of the approach was Jeremy Bentham. In
Germany, the genesis of penology is associated with the 19 t - century prison
reform program , on the one hand, and with the contemporary development of
legal, criminal, anthropological and historical studies on the genesis of criminal law
institutions, mainly of various organizational forms of punishment, including the
penalty of imprisonment.
The very name penology appeared in scientific literature in the first half
of the 19th century (not later than in 1838). Then, social-philosophical as well
humanistic reflections on punishment became visibly autonomous in subject and
methodology from the dogmatics of law and from practical prison studies. As a result,
penology was more and more defined as including, for the purpose of research subject
(punishment as social phenomenon) and for the purpose of academic lecture, various
so- defined social and philosophical studies on criminal punishment. In some countries,
such studies were resulting mainly from penitentiary reforms (e.g. England), in
others, like Poland, from the lecture of criminal law, deeply rooted in social,
historical and philosophical context. In Germany, they took an intermediate dimension
and concerned mostly the history of criminal institutions of both substantive criminal
law and of prisons. Independently of different shifts in the area of focus, the
definition of the subject matter of penology became more and more refined: it
pertained to criminal punishment as social institution and its different research levels
(historical, sociological, legal, philosophical and penitentiary) which laid grounds for
its methodology. Studies on criminal punishment as social institution carried out
from historical—social perspective or philosophical—social perspective, or
sociological, penitentiary—legal perspective, were defined as penological ones. The
starting point of such research, whether these were theoretical generalizations on prison
reforms, or social — philosophical general reflections on the evolution of punishment,
criminal liability and sentence in substantive criminal law, was of secondary and minor
importance for the identity of the discipline, especially that the lecture on penology
might be subject to a greater subject refinement, depending on the direction of
scientific thinking. Within different research angles, it took the form of either
theoretical, social and philosophical research on the notion of punishment, a
6
sociological analysis of the institutions of justice, the historical description of penal

ideals and criminal law institutions, or the interpretation of theoretical foundations for
specific organizational forms of punishment and the measurement of their effectiveness in
socio—criminological and penitentiary—pedagogical aspect.
In historical terms, the scope and forms of institutionalization of penological

topics as lectures and publications distinct from criminal law and prison sciences,
remained heterogeneous and took different dynamics in different Western countries.
Penology—oriented studies were also included in several Polish works on criminal law,
starting with the first Polish systemic lecture on criminal law by R. Hube, already
mentioned in the paper, while the very name "penology" was finally adopted in Polish
science of criminal law to define the studies of punishment as social institution only
by Bronislaw Wroblewski, who published in 1926, in Vilnius, two—volume work
entitled "Penology: Sociology of Punishment" .
Penology as a Scientific Discipline

Franz von Liszt, who is deemed to be the founder and one of the leading
representatives of the sociological school of criminal law (dated at the turn of the
19thand 20th century), stated that penology aims to define criminal punishment and to
establish how it differs from other measures of social Control. The similar view on the
subject of penology was shared by Bronislaw Wroblewski.
According to these two authors, the aim of penology is to establish real, socially
tangible nature of sanctions defined as criminal punishment and not solely to study
logical and linguistic, systemic and aim—oriented interpretation of regulations setting
such sanctions. Thus, penology differs from the science of substantive criminal law, law
of criminal proceedings and executive criminal law by not being a dogmatic science
of legal norms. Penology includes normative aspects of criminal punishment, but
normative and linguistic penological studies on purely dogmatic analysis of
regulations are dominated by the analytical research on language carried out for
the purpose of further studies on punishment as social phenomenon (analytic
philosophy) institutionalized in legal provisions.
7
It is only at the very last stage of such research that penology combines the science of
substantive criminal law, law of criminal proceedings and executive criminal law, as it
takes into account the results of the analyses made within the dogmatics of criminal
law. Penology is then an auxiliary discipline of the science of criminal law (the core of
penal science is made of dogmatic studies), but at the same time carries for such science
a fundamental meaning, by defining its foundations. These are:
First of all, ontological foundations, i.e. those pertaining to the real existence
(action) of the criminal punishment institution and of the whole criminal law in
their different dimensions: normative, sociological, psychological, historical,
cultural and economic;
Secondly, axiological foundations, i.e. those related to the substantiation of

criminal punishment and of the whole criminal law, and, in consequence,
indirectly to their political legitimacy.
Thirdly, epistemological foundations, defining research on criminal punishment

and criminal law in the light of different research methods.
Penology endeavors to give, within a given perspective, the comprehensive justification

and description of the punishment system, by interweaving epistemological,
ontological and axiological threads.
Penological thinking was mainly forged on the basis of some general social vision
of punishment and its various forms, in particular the penalty of imprisonment.
Originally, i.e. in the 19th century, ideological involvement and general sociological—
philosophical reflections were combined with detailed penitentiary studies. The
progressive development and professionalization of each and every stage of
punishment execution led to the emergence of more specialized studies on specific aspects
of punishing. This caused a horizontal split into, for instance, penitentiary pedagogy and
psychology and politics and science of penitentiary law, and a vertical split into general
studies on social process of punishment (penology) and disciplines focused on selected
aspects of professional execution of punishment (penitentiary sciences).
While penitentiary sciences are accurately classified among criminological

sciences, penological studies are directly more close to the philosophy of criminal law
8
and reflections on the most general foundations of criminal punishment in its cultural and
social, historical and philosophical context. In this sense, penology is an autonomous sub
—discipline of the science of criminal law, and means an interdisciplinary approach
to a defined subject matter, which is criminal punishment as a social phenomenon.
Similarly to Anglo—Saxon tradition, some Polish sources consider penology as a

sub-discipline of criminology. This approach contradicts Polish tradition in the
development of penological studies, but the argument of tradition should not
prevail over the arguments of content. It may be claimed that some works began to
confuse the scope of penology with the scope of specific studies on the execution of
penal sanctions, which in Poland fall into the scope of differently defined penitentiary
sciences (including penitentiary law and policy). This confusion between criminology
and penitentiary sciences should be seen as the fruit of the period of dominance of
positivist paradigm in social sciences school in criminology, and simultaneous crisis of
the philosophy of punishment in the science of criminal law, which lasted since the
beginning of the 20th century until approximately the turn of the seventies and eighties
of the 20th century. At that time, the major activity was shifted from the development of the
theory of punishment to challenging the foundations of criminal law and searching
alternative forms of dealing with social phenomena defined by criminal law as crimes.
The tendency was to develop specific penitentiary studies necessary for practical execution
of different organizational forms of punishment and empirical studies in criminal policy
and criminology.
Simultaneously, much neglect was caused to scientific thinking on their

theoretical grounds in the science of criminal law as such grounds were thought to be
beyond the scope of penal sciences. It is worth underlining that the present revival of
interest in word literature in penology and philosophy of punishment has not been
brought by the discovery of new, convincing rationalizations of punishment as social
and legal institution. It is more the result of the assumption that the criminal punishment is
an important institution of social life and, in consequence, considering social reality as
such, it would be difficult to call its dusk. Criminal punishment as a category
(institution) lying at the heart of criminal law continues to be an extremely important
form of interference into the rights and freedoms of the individual, and its execution
9
still misses unquestionable theoretical justification and axiological foundations. That

is why, criminal punishment may be claimed to be at present a tragic institution. It is
tragic because, even if not sufficiently effective, it still seems to be a necessity in
combating crime, and because, even if a long—time source of essential moral objection
(as a form of affliction caused intentionally to the human being), it is maintained in the
name of the ideals of morality and justice, so often raised in its defense. In practice, the
return to penology, together with modern awareness of the tragic dimension of
punishment, stems from the quest for alternatives to criminal punishment, in places where
the condition of social and political relations and the sensitivity of soul give such
opportunities. In that sense, there is no contradiction between the development of
corrective justice studies, mediation studies or even the emergence of abolitionist
thinking and movement, on the one hand, and penological research, which may give such
tendencies a solid scientific foundation. In other, numerous instances, the evolution of
penology fosters attempts to give the punishment a more humanitarian image, for example
by devising penalties not involving loss of liberty or by civilizing the execution of
imprisonment (development of international prison rules). This will have important
implications because, as history shows, unreasonable abandonment of the institution
of criminal punishment, instead of diminishing the scope and intensity of repressive
measures may lead to their increase, which was spectacularly demonstrated to the
world by the example of Guantanamo camps.
It should be underlined that the question of the place of penology as a separate discipline
within other penal sciences and the resulting definition of the scope of its interest has
important scientific and teaching consequences. It is certainly not problematic either for
science of for teaching whether the very term "penology" is used or not, as it is not
problematic whether penology is classified as a sub—discipline of criminology or a
separate discipline of the science of criminal law. What counts for science is whether the
adopted solutions give rise to socially and scientifically important subjects. Similarly,
what counts for teaching is whether the frame of topics in penology is defined in a way to
adequately complement knowledge brought by other penal disciplines such as
(dogmatic) sciences of criminal law, criminology, and particularly criminal and
penitentiary policy. By limiting penology to some apparently erudite introduction to the
10
proper, i.e. dogmatic, lecture of criminal law or to some short sociological and philosophical
introduction to general considerations of criminology and penitentiary science we will
lack in—depth studies on criminal punishment as social phenomenon and philosophical
problem, and fail to transfer appropriate subject knowledge within didactic process. As
a consequence, we will face "a penological gap", seriously impairing any practical
possibility to diagnose reliably the issues of the functioning of criminal law in legal and
social system. Such approach hinders the full use of works in sciences of mankind,
society and law which would help optimally devise, at a given stage of civilizational
progress, the actions of those involved in different forms of social control, specifically
within criminal justice system.
Penological theory of punishment should be, as it has already been stated by

Bronislaw Wroblewski and Leszek Lernell, an introduction to the science of
criminal policy and penitentiary sciences. This theory depicts social and cultural
context and controversial axiological foundations and limits of criminal punishment.
This means that for the purpose of general thinking on criminalization (and
penalization), on rules of criminal liability, general principles of awarding penalties as
well as theoretical bases for their execution, penology may bring important
contributions, translatable into more specific solutions in criminal policy. It may be
helpful in establishing an axiologically and praxeologically coherent system of
criminal law. Without such grounding, the actions of the State in criminal policy and
penitentiary policy will loose their coherence, which may lead to both a decrease in the
efficiency of fight against crime and the loss of political and axiological legitimacy of
such actions.
Penology may be considered as some separate set of interdisciplinary subjects

of scientific research on (criminal) punishment, including research on the bases of
criminal liability, as well as a separate set of penology — oriented topics of teaching
(theory and philosophy of punishment, sociology and anthropology of punishment,
history of punishment, ideology of penal institutions etc.) selected for the purpose of
didactics. In that way, the basic subject of interest of penology will be different
organizational forms of criminal punishment as social institution in the context of
culture and general organization of the society. From that perspective, penology
11
will remain the theoretical foundation for research on the definition of sanctions
(institutionalization) in legal provisions and their interpretation in the course of law
application, as well as for the specific research on the execution of various organizational
forms of punishment, first of all those executed in liberty (deprivation and restriction of
liberty) carried out within penitentiary sciences. It combines the study of philosophical,
ideological and cultural institutions of criminal punishment and the study of its real
functions within criminal policy and within a broader socio—cultural, political,
economic and institutional context.
Penology remains a modern discipline as it draws on works from other different

fields, for the needs of its research and teaching. Thus, it bears an interdisciplinary and
inclusive character; it includes different themes and research perspectives into the study of
a multi — aspect theme, which is the criminal punishment. The dominance of legal and
criminal thinking in penology does not come from any particular scientific weight of
legal, and more broadly penal questions in penological studies; it is more that the social
effects of penological studies and teaching of penology for students is primarily
dependent on the needs of criminal justice. Criminal law and criminal justice are
those two areas in which social effects of penological research and teaching, and,
which is a more frequent case, social effects of the lack of penological activities of
justice and of penological knowledge among those responsible for criminal policy and
penitentiary policy of the State are most perceptible.
Penology Vs. Pedagogy and Sociology of Education
Penology sees the criminal punishment as a social institution. The notion of

social institution refers to repeatable, well — established behaviors, patterns, rules and
rituals. Another notion frames social institution as a distinctive type of activity fulfilling
the needs of individuals and communities. Within such meaning, used also by Bronislaw
Malinowski, the institution is split into the ultimate principle, i.e. the aims and
objectives as foundations of its rationalization, norms, staff and material assets, the
manifestations of its activities and social functions understood as its known and
unknown consequences for the society. In the latter case, the primary meaning is
interwoven with the secondary meaning, which defines the visible
12
organizational form that social institutions may take, for instance the specific
organizational forms of criminal punishment.
Social institutions, in their specific organizational forms, may be classified into

different types, such as:
1.Family and kinship institutions which mainly regulate the rules of biological and
cultural reproduction of the society in the course of nurturing and child care;
2.Political institutions which regulate the relations of power and define the
political organization of the society and the functioning of coercive measures;
3.Institutions which regulate the rules of social stratifications and define the
distribution of social positions and social resources within the society;
4.Economic institutions which regulate the production and distribution of goods;
5.Nurture and education institutions which pertain to religion, scientific and artistic
activities, mass media activities and participation in higher culture.
Considering the classification above, we may assume that penology, and more
broadly speaking, all types of criminal justice studies investigate first of all social
institution belonging to the second and the third type, in other words, institutions of
political nature which regulate the relations of power, the political organization of the
society and the functioning of coercive measures as well as those establishing the rules of
social stratification and define the distribution of social positions and social resources
within the society. However, from the pedagogical point of view, the most important
institutions are covered within types one and five; these are family and kinship
institutions regulating primarily the rules of biological and social reproduction of the
society through nurturing and child care, on the one hand, and nurture and
educational institutions pertaining to religion, scientific and artistic education, mass
media activities and participation in higher culture, on the other. This is quite an
important assumption as it helps set the initial pragmatic difference between the
sciences of pedagogy, including social prevention and rehabilitation, and penology,
and more broadly criminal law and the sciences of criminology, which is theoretically
vital and bears some in—depth practical implications.
13
It becomes clear that pedagogy and penal sciences often raise different questions
even if in empirical, none—social sense, they talk about the same events. This
theoretical distinction was introduced within culturally integrated studies, and may
pave the way for the practical integration of works from these two, fundamentally
distinctive, research fields. The integration of findings of sciences of education plays
an important role for penological studies. The role of criminal punishment is to fulfill,
to a large extent, the needs of individuals and communities as for the sense of order,
security and justice. Such role may be fulfilled within the limits set by the ultimate
institutional principle of the State, which provides for philosophical foundations of
rights and freedoms of the human being, i.e. within the limits of the respect of
human dignity. This requires taking into account, in devising punishment
organizational forms and in establishing the sentence and execution methods, the
humanistic knowledge of the human being, including any findings on possible
humanitarian methods of modifying human behavior.
Criminal punishment should never be confused with punishment in education, which

is obvious from culturally integrated perspective. Punishment in education refers to
the individual (and his/her well—being), a human being who, due to influence (i.e.
reasonable aversive stimuli), should permanently change his/her behavior for the
sake of himself/herself and the society. On the other hand, criminal punishment is
primarily used in order to ensure the sense of order, security and justice for the society
at large (and it may only secondarily consider the well — being of the individual under
punishment as a member of such society; it will however never be its primary function).
This difference between criminal punishment and punishment in education, raised
in culturally integrated studies, does not preclude any links between pedagogy and
sociology of education with penology. It only gives such relations a right dimension and
helps avoid errors of categorical shift, encountered sometimes in penitentiary
literature. According to abovementioned findings of culturally integrated studies, in
awarding criminal punishment in the name of the State we need to maintain
axiological coherence of the system of law, i.e. the need to respect dignity of the
punished individual. That is why it is necessary to continue to study the compliance of
criminal punishment with humanitarian standards protecting human dignity. And that is
14
also why the knowledge from the field of sociology of education and pedagogy may
have a significant influence on findings pertaining to the objective scope of
punishment (penalization) and its forms, particularly regarding the minors and
juveniles. It is universally important in shaping the forms of humanitarian punishment.
It helps establish limits beyond which, in the light of present humanistic knowledge of
the human being and its social behavior, there are no sufficient reasons for applying
some particularly inflicting forms of influence.
It cannot be scientifically confirmed that any type of social institution is a

necessity. As the research, among all studies led by Robert K. Merton, show, what
is necessary for the society to exist is a function exerted by specific types of institutions
and not such specific institutions and their organizational forms themselves,
including, for instance, organizational forms of criminal punishment. This
functionalist assumption may become a good theoretical basis for different
approaches in abolitionist thinking which postulates to repeal, as far as reasonable, the
system of criminal punishment, or at least the penalty of imprisonment as contrary to
the well—being of the man and as lacking respect of human dignity.
From the perspective of culturally integrated penology , in such approach,

abolitionists need to find measures to ensure individuals and societies the sense of
order, justice and security without the help of the system of criminal punishment. The
discussion on this difficult topic, definitely going beyond the scope of the science
of criminal law and criminology, should involve humanist thinkers, including the
representatives of pedagogy and sociology of education. Independently of the
fundamental role of pedagogical sciences (rehabilitation and penitentiary
pedagogy) for penitentiary sciences, social pedagogy and pedagogy of education
should contribute to the penological debate on the most general grounds of
punishment . Such debate is strictly connected with thinking on the whole social
system and on values to be transferred to young generations, as well as with the
reflections on methods deemed as worthy, or at least acceptable, for their
promotion and protection. The debate focuses on methods which may be applicable
in various organizational forms of criminal punishment. It may also contribute to
the discussion on methods of social control different from criminal punishment. It
15
may relate to alternative measures of different, also none—repressive forms of

control within social organization as a whole (social prevention) and other
axiologically similar alternative forms of resolving social conflicts within criminal
justice, for instance restorative justice or mediation.
CORRECTIONS
Penology
Penology is the branch of criminology concerned with government policies and
practices in dealing with persons convicted of crimes. Its etymology, from the Latin
poena, meaning “pain” or “suffering,” reflects the early conception of punishment
as the primary objective of state action toward criminals. However, in modern times
interest in punishment has been largely replaced by concern with changing the
abilities, interests, attitudes, and emotions of criminals. Accordingly, as we move
farther into the second half of the twentieth century, we often find the term
“corrections” being used instead of “penology.”
The treatment of criminals has always been motivated by
1) the feelings of hostility and desires for revenge that criminals arouse in their
victims and in those who sympathize with the victims;
2) abstract philosophies, ideologies, and religious beliefs regarding punishment;
3) prevailing theories of crime causation.
Usually all three of these motives and rationales operate simultaneously, but the
sequence in which they are enumerated above corresponds to the historical shift that
has occurred in the relative power of each to determine penal objectives. These
objectives are epitomized by four words: revenge, restraint, reformation, and
reintegration. All four have always been pursued to some extent, but there have been
marked changes in the frequency with which each has been explicitly set forth as the
primary penal goal.
16
Revenge and restraint

Evidence that government concern with punishing persons who commit crimes developed
primarily to replace private vengeance-seeking by the victims and their kin is provided
not only by historical accounts of early judicial agencies but also by objective statistical
scaling of societies on the basis of their culture traits. Freeman and Winch (1957), in an
analysis of 48 societies, found that where governments do not assume this private
punishment function, the society rarely is able to maintain full-time priests; without full-
time priests, they do not have full-time teachers; unless they have full-time teachers, they
lack full-time bureaucrats; and so on up the scale of societal complexity. Thus, it seems
well established that penal activity is a prerequisite to much elaboration of other
functions by government and religious institutions; when there is no penal program, the
regulation of society by church or state is continually subject to restriction by the anarchy
of private feuding among offenders and victims.
Until the eighteenth century in Europe, and much later in many other areas, the
structuring of penal policy by the prevailing religious and political status hierarchies was
explicit. The nobility was subject to a criminal law different in its specification of
penalties from that which prescribed punishments for commoners. The latter were dealt
with most harshly, especially when the victims of their offenses were of the nobility. This
was justified by an explanation of crime as the consequence of a base nature, a condition
presumed to be most frequent in the “low-born.” An alternative theory, that crimes result
from the possession of one’s spirit by the devil, through witchcraft and wizardry, justified
both the imposition of some punishment by clerical courts and a strong church influence
on the penal policies of secular courts.
Two major influences on punishment that may be latent at all times were blatantly
manifest in Europe until the end of the eighteenth century. These influences were the
social distance between the punisher and the punished and the economic interests of the
punisher. When the punisher could perceive the offender as both alien and inferior, there
was little reluctance to impose death, torture, physical mutilation, severe corporal
punishment, or some combination of these. When punisher and punished were peers, the
most frequent penalties were forfeiture of property, forced labor, and banishment. Rusche
17
and Kirschheimer (1939) exhaustively document an argument that the supply of labor
also determined penal policy with respect to lower-class offenders: when labor was
scarce, punishment was most often forced work in galleys or in houses of correction, but
when there was a surplus of labor, punishment by death or by transportation to the
colonies prevailed.
Beccaria and Modern Penology

There developed in the Enlightenment, partly in reaction to the severity of punishments
imposed by the nobility, a conception of all men as equal. This was equality, not in
possessions or status, but in rights and in potential amenability to guidance by reason. In
1764 these conceptions were brilliantly used by Cesare Beccaria as postulates for a new
penal policy. His Essay on Crimes and Punishments had an immediate and tremendous
influence throughout Europe and America and is often considered the beginning of
modern penology. In the half century that followed, Beccaria’s arguments were
extended by Voltaire, Bentham, Romilly, and others, reflecting the philosophy of
utilitarianism. This resulted in so-called “classical” criminal law, which still provides the
framework for our penal codes. This legal perspective calls for punishments based on the
offense, rather than on the offender, and calculated to inflict no more pain than suffices to
offset the satisfaction that a crime might yield to its perpetrator.
Imprisonment and forced labor, because their ostensible severity can be precisely
graduated in terms of time, were well suited to the employment by judges of what
Bentham called a “felicific calculus.” This is the prescription of punishment in precise
degrees of severity, so that the pain the court imposes balances the presumed
gratifications from the crime. The high valuation of liberty and the respect for all humans
which were fostered in the democratic revolutions also promoted a preference for
imprisonment or labor as penalties, rather than torture or death. Furthermore, the public
felt protected when felons were confined. As a result of these several factors, during the
half century which followed publication of Beccaria’s work, imprisonment replaced
capital and corporal punishment in Western Europe for over two hundred felonies.
18
Reformation and the Reformatory Movement

“Classical” legal philosophy stressed dual objectives: “individual deterrence” was to
offset the happiness that an offender supposedly gains from his crime, and “general
deterrence” was to make non offenders perceive crime as not conducive to happiness.
However, a different justification for imprisonment was promulgated around the time of
the American Revolution in the Pennsylvania colony, many of whose Quaker leaders had
been imprisoned in Britain for their religious beliefs.
Like some European Roman Catholic penal pioneers in the same period, the Quakers
were inspired by the monastery cells in which monks sought spiritual reformation
through isolation and meditation. Prevailing penal construction congregated groups of
inmates in large rooms, but the Pennsylvanians advocated a separate cell for each
offender, cutting him off from communication with his fellows. They claimed that this
promoted more penitent thought, especially when these “penitentiaries” limited the
reading matter in each cell to a Bible and religious tracts, with little or no work and with
visits only from preachers and pious laymen.
The “Pennsylvania system” spread rapidly. It became the predominant prison pattern in
continental Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, it was
opposed as costly, and its claims of reformation were challenged by advocates of a
system developed at a prison in Auburn, New York, during the first half of the
nineteenth century. The Auburn system, which soon prevailed in the United States,
emphasized solitary confinement at night, but congregate work during the day, under a
rigid rule of silence. Later in the nineteenth century the striped suit and lock step also
were identified with the Auburn system; these features largely disappeared only after
World War n. Despite their ostensible contrast, both the Pennsylvania and the Auburn
prison systems were based on a conception of crime as learned in communication among
criminals, rather than as a purely individual calculation of alternative utilities. Both
prison systems also claimed that they trained offenders in legitimate modes of thought
and behavior, instead of merely deterring them.
Emphasis on training increased in the latter part of the nineteenth century with the
“reformatory movement,” which is usually traced to the Elmira Reformatory in New
19
York. This special institution for young felons developed distinctive features in the 1870s
under the leadership of Zebulon R. Brockway. It borrowed from Alexander
Maconochie’s Norfolk prison colony in Australia the “mark system” of awarding
inmates numerical credits for each period of good behavior, with loss of these “marks”
for misconduct. A specified total number of marks were required for each small reduction
of restrictions or increment of comfort in the institution, as well as for release. Elmira
added to this an emphasis on education and vocational training. Most major prison
systems established reformatories during the subsequent half century. However, they
generally replaced the mark system by less mechanically assigned hierarchies of rank and
small privilege for inmates, known as “honor” systems in the United States, and
elsewhere as “graded” or “step” systems.
PROBATION AND PAROLE

Probation and parole are procedures for release of convicted criminals or adjudicated
delinquents on a conditional basis in order to assist them in pursuing a noncriminal life,
with the proviso that they may be committed or returned to a correctional institution if
their behavior after release fails to meet standards of the releasing authority.
If granted by a court as an alternative to incarceration, this release is generally called

“probation.” Probation evolved from the common-law procedure of suspended sentence,
by which a judge first imposes a specific penalty, then orders that the penalty not be
enforced if the offender behaves as directed. Probation differs from suspended sentence
in that the court appoints someone to assist the convicted person in achieving a law-
abiding life, as well as to check whether the conditions of release are obeyed.
If granted by an administrative agency to someone who already has served part of a

term of confinement, this release is usually called “parole” in the United States and
“license” in Britain. The term “parole” can be traced to parole d’honneur (word of
honor), a type of oath known in medieval days whereby military prisoners or offenders
of noble birth were released on their promise not to escape or not to resume conflict.
The cognate or other equivalent of the term “conditional liberation” is used in non-
English-speaking countries. However, in much popular speech and even in some legal
statutes within the United States “probation” and “parole” are used interchangeably.
20
Both probation and parole represent a shift from the classic penal goal of deterrence to
the modern goal of encouraging the offender to find some legitimate alternative to crime,
while continuing to restrain him for the protection of society. Probation and parole also
involve postponing a final decision in dealing with the criminal; the offender’s ultimate
treatment is left uncertain until he is observed further.
Classification and Individual Treatment

Concomitant with the reformatory movement were the separate developments of
probation and parole. The simultaneous emphasis on institutional programs for reform
and on conditional modes of release to test how well reform was achieved reflected the
development of the biological and social sciences during the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. These fostered a conception of crime not as something to be morally
condemned but as a phenomenon having natural causes and, hence, controllable if these
causes are identified and altered. However, a great diversity of causes seemed to be
involved. Early criminological researchers, notably
Cesare Lombroso, ascribed crime to biological inheritance;
Psychologists first emphasized imbecility, and later the emotional disturbances of

early childhood, as causes of crime;
Sociologists called attention to deviant subcultures and to the influence of social

support in delinquent and criminal activity.
The most prevalent explanation for crime, therefore, became “multiple causation”. This
justified the major prison management emphasis in the second quarter of the twentieth
century, “classification” and “individual treatment” of inmates.
The classification process in correctional institutions begins with medical and

psychological examination of the newly received prisoner, plus a caseworker’s
preparation of the inmate’s life history. These reports are discussed by the institution’s
classification committee, which usually consists of the head of its custodial staff, plus the
director of its school, its physician, chaplains, and caseworkers. They first assess risk of
escape, of violence, or of other misconduct by the inmate. Then, within the limits posed
by these custodial concerns, they recommend a program of training and treatment by
21
which the institution may help to correct the inmate’s deficiencies. As an incentive to his
compliance with this treatment program, the inmate is advised that such a self-
improvement effort will enhance his prospects for parole.
Two major problems have been widely recognized in these reformation efforts;
The first is the fact that society has seldom been willing to invest in its treatment
programs funds sufficient to correct serious educational, vocational training,
psychological, and other deficiencies of most offenders.
The second is the demonstration by research that, for many offenders, such
treatment does not prevent a return to crime, especially when their social
acceptance and their conception of themselves as successful has been and
continues to be much more immediate and frequent in criminal than in noncriminal
pursuits.
Accordingly, the second half of the twentieth century has seen the penal objectives of
deterrence and treatment, inherited from prior periods, augmented by concern with
changing the social relationships of offenders.
PUNISHMENT
The term “punishment,“ in its psychological sense, is most commonly and
appropriately applied to a situation in which a deprivation or unpleasant experience is
deliberately imposed by one party upon another because of an actual or supposed
misdeed which is knowingly and intentionally committed by the latter. The misdeed may
be the violation of a rule, a law, a command, or an expectation and may consist either of
an actor of inaction when action is called for. It is generally presumed that both parties to
the transaction perceive the “punishment“, as unpleasant and the provoking act as a
misdeed or at least as punishable.
At the sociological level, punishment is characteristically defined in terms of collective

perceptions and official definitions. Confusion is likely to follow from the failure to
distinguish between the sociological and psychological frames of reference. Thus, from
an official point of view, a person who is arrested, tried, and acquitted for an alleged
crime has escaped punishment, despite the fact that his reputation may have been
22
destroyed in the process. Punishments which are externally equivalent from the societal
standpoint may be very differently perceived by the individuals upon whom they are
imposed and may, indeed, not be experienced as punishment at all— as, for example,
when an offense is committed to obtain free board and lodging in jail during the cold
winter months. Those who regard certain laws as immoral, discriminatory, unjust, or
tyrannical often feel that the imposed punishment confers honor and distinction upon
them; the question in this case is whether it is the ethical duty of citizens to obey the law
or to violate it.
The Crime of Punishment

The act of punishment in human relations is itself subject to normative control by a
wide range of formal and informal rules, the violation of which in some instances
transforms the act of punishment into a crime.
Parents are generally conceded the right to punish their children for disobedience, but
the injury inflicted by a criminal upon his victim for disobedience to his commands is
defined as crime, not as punishment. Similarly, excessive parental chastisement of a
child may bring formal punishment upon the parent. Critics of current penal practices
make frequent use of the phrase “the crime of punishment“(Shaw 1922).
Formal and Informal Punishment

Formal punishment is regarded as that which is administered through the courts,
and all other kinds are called informal.
Informal punishment is of course extensively used in a wide variety of

interpersonal and institutional contexts.
It is commonly employed in the rearing and education of the young. All types of
associations and establishments, such as educational and military institutions, political,
occupational, and other types of associations, tend to have established ways of dealing
with recalcitrant members. Expulsion from the group is a common sanction in voluntary
associations. Punitive sanctions tend to be emphasized when membership is involuntary
or in some degree coerced, and they may be specified in relatively formal sets of rules
23
and regulations, as for example in boarding schools, prisons, and other similar
establishments. Our concern here, however, will be with punishment for crime.
Penology
Penology comes from the Latin word poena which means punishment and it is concerned
with an in-depth examination of the formal institutions of criminal justice such as police,
courts and corrections. It is concerned with the process devised and adopted for
punishment, prevention of crime and treatment of prisoners. Sentencing and punishment
are currently increasing profile policy issues. They have generated debate and proposals
for new procedures, criteria, social life. This is a policy area that is also complex and
issues of criminal justice practice and the administration are continually with the public
domain. The modern society has attempted to address the problem of increased crime by
building more and more prisons but the futility of incarceration is apparent, calling for
renewed debate on how best to counter this. Sentencing and punishment are by no means
mere academic matters. Policy and practice impact on actual and potential victims of
crime if they fail to prevent or limit reoffending. They affect the offender and family and
friends and also leads to a large expenditure on courts and prisons. These are also topics
where they are strong personal and popular feelings about what should happen and how
justice should be done. Policy and practice in this area are also contingent on and
influenced by a very wide range of factors. Political, social and economic issues are not
only of great importance in the broader development of penal policy but are also relevant
to the particular circumstances of individual offenders and their experience of
punishment.
Understanding factors influencing penal policy

1. Punishment can be distinguished from other forms of pains or sufferings which are not
a response to our misdeeds e.g. painful medical treatment. Punishment rests on moral
reasons and is the expression of moral condemnation in response to rule infringements.
Feinberg J (1994) in an article called "The expressive function of punishment refers to
censure or condemnation as to the defined feature of punishment "it has a symbolic
significance. It is a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and
24
indignation. A key feature of punishment is that it rests on a moral foundation expressing

a moral judgment. It is reflective and based on reasons. It stems from an authoritative
source usually the state. A key question that has been asked is why some acts are
criminalized and not others and why society deals harshly with some wrong doing and
lightly with others. the most common questions posed are:-
- What particular response is made to an action or behavior and why? I.e.

what to punish.
- If the response is penal which particular penal option is selected? I.e. how to
punish.
- What is the particular level of penal response? I.e. how much to punish.
2. Penology is also concerned with questions of equality, fairness and justice

which must also be considered within the policy e.g. whether some groups are
selected for harsher punishment or if apparently neutral policies have differential
impact. e.g. discrimination against race(s) or economic means or the mentally
disordered, women and children etc the notion of justice is not clear cut but
embodies fairness to all members of the community including victims and
offenders and sticking a balance between their competing interests. This is as the
cornerstone of the current criminal justice system.
3. human rights have implication for both the theory and practice of
punishment in justifying specific punishments in assuming the justice of
punishment and in improving standards in penal institutions e.g. respect for
sponsors, treatment of remand prisoners, bail, right for fair trial, presumption of
innocence etc this principle may act as a control on judicial discretion and
inhibiting disparities in sentencing.
4. There are also influences on penal policy which may reflect the political and
ideological principles underpinning the penal policy. Political dimensions raises
questions about power, how much power a government has to implement policy
through enhancement of law. In economic terms, crime punishment is costly in
25
financial terms and has a significant influence of penal policy. Cost of processing
offenders is enormous, therefore there is increasingly a move to cut costs by
introducing e.g. community penalties and when deciding what to punish, some
offenses may be uneconomic to punish, such as minor infringement and sometimes
it is better to use lighter sentences.
5. Influence of public opinion on penal policy. It is a key variable in shaping

the response to crime and disorder. It can be expressed through electoral choice
e.g. hanging, lethal injection, public opinion polls, letter of compliance and judges
who see themselves as dispensing popular justice as representative of the public.
For the criminal justice system to be effective, it must have legitimacy in the eyes
of the republic. Sometimes, this causes a problem where a government's response
to moral panic by giving harsher sentences, which do not succeed in controlling
crime. It is also sometimes difficult to identify accurately the public opinion on
issues of crime and punishment.
6. Prison population: these are increasing in number and felt that there is a
need for alternatives to custody such as community penalties and fines. However,
this requires public awareness and information on crime levels, sentencing
decisions and policies. The public has to be convinced that alternative to custody
will be effective and to be aware that the greater use of imprisonment will only
marginally affect crime rates.
Influence of theory on penal law and practice
1. Principles from criminology and penology: These principles are the

justifications of punishment and they include; retribution, rehab, social protection
and none recently restoration of social harmony. Together, they constitute the store
of knowledge regarding what is theoretically the best response in dealing with
offenders, because theorists from oppressing conditions may agree that punishment
is necessary but different in their news of the best response, the type of punishment
may depend on which theory, which purpose of punishment is explicit or implicit
in policy. It may also depend on which philosophical ideas underpin the chosen
26
punishment. E.g. where the individual is seen as autonomous or possessive, free

will or whether their actions are determined by their surrounding environment or
genetic makeup.
2. The so called 'new penology':This has also influenced penal law. It draws
on the new managerialist focus on value for money which is reflected in new
public management. It applies private sector method to public sector incorporating
a concern with efficient use of resources e.g. to consider whether punishing certain
types of minor infringements is cost effective. It uses actuarial (statistics to
manage, predict, etc) to manage the risk of offending and reoffending. The new
penology according to Simon 1992, embraces both a theory and a practice and
punishment. In the new penology, crime is seen as normal and the best we can
hope for is to control crime and risk through actuarial policies and technocrat
forms of knowledge, internally generated by the penal system. This approach
focuses on categories of potential and actual offenders rather than an individual on
managerial aims rather than management and transformation of the offender. Its
focus is on actuarial incapacitation as a way of managing risk and removing
persistent offenders
from society. Prison is used to warehouse offenders at high risk of reoffending and
because of managerial cost concerns are , prisons will be reserved for the rest risk
categories. Actuarial justice provides means of selecting the target population to be
imprecated. This approach has been..a significant influence of penal policy in USA and
UK.
3. Classical theories of punishment: The principle justification of

punishments is clearly associated with distinct traditions or schools. Retribution
was influence by the late 18th Century philosophies and received in the 1970s and
80s. The rival tradition is which includes the justification of , social protection
or incapacitation or
. Both theories accept that punishment can be justly inflicted but differ in their views of
what constitutes the justice of a particular punishment. Both seek to limit to use of
27
discretion of sentencing in favor of a more vigorous principle approach and both address
issues of proportionality. Both approaches have had a strong impact of penal policy in
recent years. One major influence of penal and sentencing policy has been a particular
reattribute idea of just desserts. Justice will be served to better through a more consistent
approach in sentencing so that convicted aims get their just and deserts which is the
calculation of seriousness and the consideration of a sentence proportionate to it.
4. Policy trends in the late 20th Century, due to the increased repeat offenders
and increasing during the 1940s onwards the rehabilitative deal lost much of its
support but have recently received renewed support. In the 1990s in the USA and
UK saw a marked increase in the use of punishment and incapacitation with focus
being a proportionate punishment rather than treatment or deterrence per say.
Trends in the past 20 years or so have seen the emergence of law and order as key.
In the UK, more policies focus is being shifted towards the heed to rebalance the
system in favor of victims, witnesses and communities and to give paramount
importance to protecting the public and resting public confidence in the aim justice
system. The aim is to increase the rights of victims even if this means fever rights
of the defendants.
Sentencing and Discretion
In a principle sentencing system, the exercise of discretion by the sentence must be

controlled.
The purpose of this section is to examine the ways in which it is done through the law,
guidance and also the use of justificatory principles as a constraint. As we have seen,
what is
construed as fair or just depends on the charging ideas of social justice and theoretical
approach that is taken to understanding the notion of punishment itself.
However, there is a consensus that it would be unjust if an agency or individual could use
its powers to impose and implement whatever punishment it wished to impose. Justice in
sentencing then requires at the very least that those individuals who undertake the
sentencing of convicted criminals are constrained by a set of principles be they moral,
28
legal or religious and by a framework of rules. Further, in a democracy, sentencing may

not be perceived as just if those rules and principles are not acceptable to the electorate.
The proper control and exercise of discretion is consequently crucial in the quest for
justice in sentencing and punishment. Discretion is one of the most contentious concepts
in criminal justice because it is so important' and yet as difficult to define. If we consider
discretion to be operating on a continuum from complete to no discretion, he/she would
follow the penal code for the word, almost like a robot. Where he has total discretion, it
may be unfair. At one extreme, sentencing is unjust because there are no constraints
whatsoever on the sentence who can then make decisions if he so wishes based on
personal prejudices and whims. Discretion can become a major source of injustice if not
confined, structured and checked. At the other end of the spectrum is the sentence who
has no discretion whatsoever, because the rules and the principles are so highly drawn
with all potential factors accounted for that the sentence is simply the technician who fills
in the date and reads off the answer, in this case, the sentence. These two might be
viewed as potentially unjust in that it would not take into account only individual
circumstances that had not been foreseen. The logical conclusion is that justice is to be
found between the two ends of this discretion spectrum. Constraints are placed on the
sentence because totally free discretion is inherently unjust. There is an expectation that
the rule of law will be upheld so that the citizens can have confidence in the law and
institutions of the state, without that confidence, the criminal justice system will be
legitimacy and will not attract the moral allegiance of the citizens putting the system and
the government at risk.
In democratic states, then judges should not just do what they might want to do when
sentencing. There are rules that to a greater or lesser extent guide them in the exercise of
their discretion. However, there are those who still criticize the idea of sentencing
guidelines as contributing to higher rates of custody because it reduces the discretion of
the individual judge. How far rules should constraint the sentence is then a matter of
debate. There are also constitutional matter about the independence of the judiciary on
one hand and the implementation of democratic decided policy on the other.
29
However, discretion is also seen as bad because a wide sentencing discretion leads to
inconsistency of sentencing in which similar cases may be treated similarly. Differential
treatment of offenders allows space for discrimination whether institutional or personal to
occur for example, based on race, gender, ethnicity, geography, class, etc. even if this
discrimination does not occur except as a perception the legitimacy of the sentencing
process may still be undermined in the eyes of the public. A further argument against
wide discretion is that it diminishes the possibility of accurately practicing sentence
outcomes. Sections cannot give a clear deterrent massage to past or potential offenders
and advocates are unable to advise their clients effectively. Also,if judges tend to sentence
at the top end of what is legally permissible over sentencing occurs. This can lead to a
crisis of resources for the government. Too wide, sentencing discretion could also make it
difficult for a democratically elected government its desired sentencing policy.
Structuring sentencing Discretion
Trends in structuring sentencing discretion show that a number of changes in penal policy
and legislation have incrementally seen the widening of choices of penalties for courts
while narrowing the discretion to choosel The number of sanctions have increased to
include probation borstal training, preventive detention for the mentally disturbed,
rehabilitative and community based penalties, fines, suspended prison sentences, absolute
or conditional discharges, community service orders, compensation orders, confiscation
of proceeds of crime, mandatory minimum custodian sentences, extended post custody
supervision etc. these can be termed as statutory constraints to the exercise of discretion.
They are the so-called traditional constraints i.e. penalties available to the sentenser.
Judges can only impose a penalty which is legally available in the jurisdiction. The range
has widened over the years. Judges are also constrained with respect to the amount of
punishment they can impose in relation to the available penalties. There are restrictions
on the upper amount of sentence that
can be legally imposed, the maximum laid down in legislation whether in terms of
sentence length for custody or community penalty or financial penalty. The statutory
maximum is meant to be used only for the gravest instances of the offence that could
30
occur. Courts have therefore established their own normal range of penalties to which in
practice sentenser refer.
Further, not all these penalties are available to all sentensers and offenders. There are
several different sorts of limits which apply in addition to statutory maxims. There are
limits on sentencing powers of magistrates' courts that cannot impose sentences above
certain set thresholds, e.g. there are certain penalties that may not be available for young
people and children.
1) Secondly, there are also extra legal factors that influence either the amount
of discretion the sentencing court can exercise or 'the outcome post sentencing.
These include allocations of resources especially in relation to 'community
sentences e.g. if funding does not allow for the establishment of community
punishment schemes it can lead to custodian sentences. Also the relevant
government official, the President or the Parole Boards can exercise administrative
or executive powers which can affect the length of custodial sentences served.
The government may also give guidance by way of circulars with the message of the
report be that prisons should be used as little as possible.
Finally, the role of public opinion and the media is also a factor in sentencing policy.
2) Thirdly, we have already discussed the development of the argument that

prisons do not work to establish prisoners and hence the new ideas for what was
believed to be more effective punishment e.g. community penalties, fines. There
are policies based on these concerns to limit use of prisons and new techniques
have been used to structure discretion in line with the policy aim. These are;
(a) The incorporation in legislation in new hurdles for the imposition of

custodian and community sentences e.g. in the UK, the Criminal Justice Act (1982)
imposes statutory hurdles in relation to a custodial sentence on a first time offender
especially juveniles and young adults.
(b) Using mandatory sentences is another method for example life sentence for
murder and more recently, what is known as the three strikes and you are out
31
legislation in several states in the USA. It severely limits judicial discretion in

regard to specific offences and repeat offenders e.g. in the USA, under the
Criminal Sentences Act (1997 where one has been found guilty of drug trafficking
offences a 3rd time, there is a minimum 7 years term imposed or the offender may
be subjected to a dangerous offend hearing or indeterminate sentence for public
protection.)
(c) Discretion is also constrained by various forms of guidance to help

sentences apply the sentencing framework as consistently as possible. This can be
through the CA decisions or through sentencing guidelines. These guidelines
consider the sentencing factors and give indication of proper range of sentences,
the interpretation of sentencing legislation and endorse or establish particular
factors as legitimately aggravating or mitigating the seriousness of the offending
and the level of the punishment. In the UK, a sentencing advisory panel has been
set up to help the CA make proposals for new guidelines. Indeed, they have even
gone further to set up a sentencing guideline council and they may set up a
permanent commission to improve transparent predictability and consistency in
sentencing in the criminal justice system.
Criticism against constraints on exercise of judicial discretion.
1. Reduced discretion results in a decreased possibility that justice can be

tailored to the specific circumstances of a case or individual. This might itself lead
to injustice.
2. Research has shown that mandatory sentences/penalties have not achieved
their intended aims.
3. Judges and other legal professionals may seek ways to circumvent

mandatory provisions. Discretion elsewhere in the Criminal Justice process could
32
become the site for increased professional activity to negotiate justice clients in
order that mandatory sentences might be avoided.
4. The lack of discretion at the sentencing stage could encourage more 'not
guilty' pleas. The accused might consider that more is at stake if the likely penalty
is severe and so chosen risk a trial. This would increase the workload for the courts
and add to the financial costs.
5. The lack of direction may lead to constitutional or Human Rights violation.
Lecture#5&6
Penology: An Introduction
Penology is defined as follows:
 Penology (from the Latin poena, “Punishment”) studies crime and punishment by
theoretical perspective. It analyses role of theories justifying punishment in
different ways. It covers retribution to re-integration of offender. It assesses
whether or not punishment achieves its goals. Broadly, it also deals with
correctional institutions, their design and classification of prison and security of
inmates.
 Branch of the science of criminology concerned with methods of punishment and

correction of criminals and prevention of crime.
The branch of criminology concerned with prison management and prisoner

rehabilitation.
 A branch of criminology dealing with prison management and the treatment of

offenders.
 It is a branch of criminology that studies crime and punishment.
 Contemporary penology concerns itself mainly with prison management and

criminal rehabilitation.
33
 It is study of theories if crime & their impact on prisoner seeking reformation and
rehabilitation and re-integration.
 It is study of crime and prison management.
 The study of prisons & treatment of criminals.
 It understands role of prisons & treatment of criminals.
 It understands role of prison environment and its impact on inmate, his reformation
and rehabilitation.
Penology
Penology studies of crime and punishment. Penology covers a vast subject matter
spreading from crime and punishment to reformation, rehabilitation and ultimate re-
integration of offender in society. It deals with management of prisoners, security of
inmates, services and programs within prison setting. Penology develops keen interest
among students to explore impact of Prison designs on inmate satisfaction, inmate
security and freedom of movement.
2. Punishment
Punishment is defined as the price the criminal pays to society or individual by inflicting
some harm or damage to someone‘s property. Punishment is a sanction (penalty) to
prevent and control humans from violating the law. Herbert Packer, a Stanford University
law professor, argues that punishment may be described as way of dealing with people
who are marked by these features:
1. The presence of an offence.
2. An Infliction of pain on account of commission of the offence.
3. Obvious purpose is neither to compensate the victim, nor to better the offender but
to inflict on the offender what is thought as deserved pain. According to Herbert
Packer punishment achieves two main goals:
a. the infliction of deserved pain on evil doer and
b. prevention of crime.
34
Concept of Punishment
To conceive means to form (an idea etc). Conception is an act of forming an idea. This
relates to forming an idea about punishment. The criminal has violated the law, so he/she
has to pay the price for that violating act. The violator deserves to be inflicted pain upon
as e knowingly did the act for which there is punishment set by the law. The criminal has
taken away something for which he has to pay back. The criminal has to compensate for
the harm he has done to an individual living in society. The punishment arises as
consequence of the act that criminal has committed, thus choosing punishment for
himself. There prevails society where there laws when protect citizens. Anyone breaking
such laws is called violation. It is clear that those who break the law must know
consequences of breaking-punishment.
Justification of Punishment
According to various schools of thought, punishment is justified as outlined:
1. Punishment is justified to compensate the harm inflicted by offender on the

victim. Compensation may be in form of fine, rehabilitation (to a victim), and
assistance or community service.
2. He is incapacitated to move the hi-prison. He doesn't enjoy fruits of free society.

He cannot live with his family or meet his friends. He is separated from society as
he is potential or repeat in offending.
3. To correct or defer an offender not to repeat the offense again.
4. To return the offender from prison to society in a way that offender has learned
skills of earning his livelihood by lawful means.
Ends/Goals/Objects/Purposes of Punishment
1. Retribution
Retribution is a justly deserved penalty. It is the act of correcting for your wrong doing. It
is the act of taking revenge (harming someone in retaliation for something harmful that
he has done). This is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, another name for it is
35
‘Desert’ meaning that criminal offenders deserve the punishment they receive at the
hands of Law and that the punishment be appropriate to the type and severity of crime
committed. In Saudi Arabia, a thief’s hand is cut for the wrong act he has committed. The
retributivists believe in like-for like retaliation in punishment. Severity in punishment
must be proportional to the gravity of the offense. The best justification of punishment is
also not purely retribution. The retributive justification of punishment is that the guilty
reserves to be punished.
2. Incapacitation
By keeping offenders in prison or other such institutions, innocent people in society are
protected. This means offender confined in prison would not commit or repeat crimes.
Thus criminal is denied opportunity to commit crime.
3. Deterrence
This is an act to convince people that criminal activity is not worthwhile; its overall goal
is crime prevention. Specific Deterrence seeks to prevent a particular offender from
engaging in repetition of crime. In general deterrence someone is made an example to
prevent general public engaging in criminal activity.
4. Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation seeks to bring about fundamental changes in offenders and their behaviou.
It is an attempt to reform a criminal offender. It is an act of restoring someone to his
previous state. It is teaching good habits, importance of time, collective teamwork and
learning some skill or vocation for survival after release from prison.
5. Restoration
This levels the harm done to the victim by compensation service or other ways. It may be
paying a fine or doing a community service.
Forms of criminal sanction (punishment)

They include fines, incarceration and probation, imposition of fines is one of the oldest
and possibly one of the most widely used punishments. Fines given by offender to
victims can help victims. Fines are community-based.
36
1. Death penalty/ Capital punishment: is a sentence of death to an offender

proven guilty in a trial b court of Law.
2. Incarceration: is a term (period the offender is confined in a correctional

institution or incarceration is the period an offenders stands as prisoner. It denotes
the period especially after the conviction. The alternative to incarceration includes
fines, restitution and community service. It is the most visible form of punishing
serious offenders. The length of incarceration may be shortened if the offender
lives according to rules set by the correctional officials. Incarceration has four
goals: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. There are the three
models of incarceration.
I. Custodial Model: This is the correctional model which emphasizes security

and discipline. It emphasizes the maintenance of security and order.
II. Rehabilitative Model: is a model of correctional institutions that

emphasizes the provision of treatment programs to reform the offender.
III. Reintegration Model: In the criminal justice system, reintegration refers to

the process of re-entry into society by persons that have been in prison, or
incarcerated. Reintegration includes the reinstatement of freedoms not
previously had by individuals as a result of being in prison.
3. Fines: are economic penalties which are paid by the offender in a specific sum of
money within the limit set by law. Fines are imposed as an addition to probation or
as an alternative to incarceration.
4. Community Service: It is an alternative to incarceration where a convicted serve

the community by public manner thereby overcoming some of the harm caused by
the crime or it is the requirement that the offender provide a specified number of
hours of public service work, such as collecting trash in parks or other public
facilities.
5. Probation: Sentencing of an offender to community supervision by a probation agency.

It is done as spending a sentence to confinement. The supervision entails obeying specific
rules of conduct while in the community. Probation is designed to maintain control and
37
assist offenders while permitting them to live in the community under supervision.
Probation is a judicial act. If conditions are not met, probation officer can bring the
offender back to court and recommend that probation may be revoked and sentence be
served in prison. Probation is advocated as a way of rehabilitating offenders whose
crimes have not been serious whose past record is clean.
Intensive Probation: Is the probation granted as an alternative for

incarceration under conditions of strict reporting to probation or with a
limited caseload.
6. Restitution: is the requirement that the offender that the offender provides
financial remuneration for the losses incurred by the victim. Restitution requires
that offender pay to the victim the cost of the crime. Restitution is compensation
paid to a victim who has suffered a financial loss as result of offender’s crime. It is
restricted to property offenses. Restitution is often a condition of probation.
Jail / Prison
A Jail is a place keeping under-trials during trial or a place for convicts with punishment
less than one year.
A Prison is place for confinement of offender whose punishment is exceeds one year to
life imprisonment or death penalty.
A Criminal is one who is defined by law as such if he violates the law.
Inmate is defined as one admitted in a hospital for treatment or one incarcerated for a
sentence.
Classification of Offenders is a systematic exercise, at any stage in Prison, where

offenders are segregated on basis of age, sex and type of offence.
Prison Programs are variety of initiates to entertain, treat, reform and rehabilitate
offenders.
Jail is a place keeping under-trials during trial or a place for convicts with punishment
less than one year or jails are the places where less serious offenders are confined or kept
during or after trial. Jail, historically has been a strange correctional hybrid part detention
38
centre for people awaiting for trial, part penal institution for sentenced misdemeanants
(people involved in less serious crimes), part refuge for those social misfits who are taken
off the streets jail is the traditional dumping ground not only for the criminal but also for
the public drunk, the mentally ill and the deviant moral. Jails is usually a facility where
prisoners generally idle, without opportunities for programs, like reformation,
rehabilitation or education. Jails are entrance way or entryway to correctional institutions.
Jails serve two vital purposes;
 they detain accused individuals awaiting for trial and
 they house those sentenced offenders serving terms usually of one year or less.
Jails are characterized by number of population making treatment and rehabilitative

programs difficult if they are launched. Jail continues to retain its pre-trial detention
function and serving as facility for offenders serving short terms. Jail is characterized
with overcrowding, no treatment or educational programs for sentenced inmates.
A new generation Jail is a facility of popular architectural design and management

policies that emphasize interaction of inmates and staff and provision of services. This
approach attempts to use the physical plant to improve the staff’s ability to manage the
inmate population. THE PODULAR UNIT (the term derived from pod and modular) is
a living area for a group of inmates that defines a post or a watch. The pod replaces the
old cell ranges. Twelve (12) to twenty five (25) individual cells are organized into a unit
(the pod) that common living area where the inmates of the pod are allowed to
congregate. (American Corrections, Tod R. Clear and George F Cole)
39
PRISON DESIGN
Radial Design
It is an architectural plan has it roots in the works of 18th
century British social theorist using "pods" of radially
orientated cells around.
Telephone-pole Design
An architectural plan for a prison calling for a long central
corridor crossed at regular intervals by structures containing
prison’s functional areas.
Courtyard Style Design

An architectural design by which the functional units of a
prison are housed in separate buildings constructed on four
sides of a hallow square.
Campus Style Design

An architectural design by which the functional units of a
prison are individually housed in a comples of buildings
surrounded by a fence.
Classification of Prisons
Prisons are classified according to level of security required:
a) Maximum Security Prison: (Close custody Prison) A Prison designed and

organized to minimize the possibility of escapes and violence and to that end
imposes strict limitations on the freedom of inmates and visitors. The purpose of
such facility is custody and discipline.
40
b) Medium Security Prison: A Prison designed and organized to prevent escapes

and violence but in which restrictions on inmates and visitors are less rigid than in
facilities for more dangerous offenders
c) Minimum Security Prison: A prison designed and organized to permit inmates

and visitors as much freedom as is consistent with concept of incarceration.
Prison Problems
Prison problems are defined as baggage of unsolvable issues related with prison inmate
population, prison management, health & other facilities.
1. Inmate-to-inmate violence: is the use of physically harmful attacks involved

between two or more that two inmates.
2. Inmate-to-staff violence: is type of violence in prison where physical harm

(with intention) is inflicted by inmate to the staff.
REFORMATION AND REHABILITATION

Reformation
Reformation is defined as:
 A process to remove faults from a person or behaviour.
 Initiating a process to give up bad habits, improve ones behaviour or abolish

misconduct or abuse etc
 Overall improvement in one’s behaviour or moral
 Reformation [improvement (or an intended improvement)] in the existing form or

condition of institutions or practices etc.
 Rescuin from error and returning to a rightful course.
 To reform make changes in (something or institution) in order to improve it. To

cause someone to relinquish an immoral or criminal style. Reformation is the act or
process of reforming.
41
REHABILITATION
Rehabilitation is defined as:
 A process of restoring a convicted offender to a constructive place in society

through some form of vocational, educational or therapeutic treatment.
 Rehabilitation is restoration of someone to a useful place in society
 Reclamation, renewal, rehabilitation (the conversion of wasteland into land

suitable for use of habitation or cultivation)
 To rehabilitate means to restore to a former condition. Rehabilitation is an act of

restoring someone to health or normal life by training and therapy after
imprisonment, addiction or illness.
 Rehabilitation is achieved through counseling, education and vocational training

to inmates. The aim is to correct defects of behaviour causing criminal life
patterns.
 Rehabilitation means to assist an inmate to re-adapt (re-adjust) to non-criminal

ways of life. It may be proving help in controlling over anger and violence. It may
be religious lessons developing sense of right and wrong and creating fear of God
Almighty.
 It may be an exercise to accept responsibility for actions.
42
Notes.5
OVERVIEW: THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT
RETRIBUTION
 The basic principle of this theory is that the offender must receive as much pain &
suffering as inflicted by him on his victim (Severity of punishment be
proportionate to the crime)
 It works on central idea that the offender has gained unfair advantages through
his/her behaviour and that punishment will set this imbalance straight.
 Retribution could be said to the ‘natural’ justification. In the sense that man thinks
it quite natural and just that a bad person ought to be punished and a good person
rewarded.
 Retributive holds that each offender must be punished even if the victim wishes to
forgive the offender or extend mercy.
DETERRENCE
 The advocates of deterrent theory justify punishment as a deterrent to the offenders

punished and also to others in community.
 It acts on belief that man acts rationally therefore he is completely responsible for
his act.
 The hedonistic assumption is that the people regulate their behaviour by calculatin
of pleasure and pain. The potential offender evaluates all possibilities and chooses
that activity which maximize his utility (William E. Cobb)
 It advocates the certainty, swiftly and severity of punishment
INCAPACITATION
 Incapacitation refers to depriving offenders of the capacity to commit crimes,

usually through detention in prison or capital punishment.
43
 The use of incapacitation strategies is as old as punishment itself. Most techniques

of incapacitation have been aimed at making it impossible for offenders to do any
offence.
 Deterrence and rehabilitation both carry a necessary possibility of being

unsuccessful because whether or not potential offenders offend or actual offenders
reoffend, is up to them. Freedom of choice remains, and therefore the possibility of
offends remain. Offenders can commit crime, crime out weight and rehabilitation
not only work.
 If general deterrence and individual rehabilitation are difficult to achieve, it

perhaps seems a goal to protect potential victims from further crimes by known
offenders through physical incapacitation either by rendering criminals physically
harmless or by removing them from circulation. Prevention of crime by amputation
by death or by life imprisonment is an incpacitative restraint which makes
impossible or difficult for the offender to reoffend.
 Selective Incapacitation: Sentencing According to Risk
 Conventional Criminological wisdom maintains that most offenders

commit one offence and don’t re-offend furthermore. The main goal of
selective incapacitation is to reduce crime by identifying and maintaining
high-risk offenders in prison.
 Selective incapacitation is a corrections strategy that seeks to protect

society and save limited corrections resources by incarcerating only those
offenders who pose the greatest threat to society. Threat is equated with
quality and quantity of offenders' offenses and likelihood of re-offending.
 Generally, the primary means of incapacitating offenders is through incarceration.

This strategy presumes the offender is prevented from committing further crime, at
least for the duration of prison term.
 The problem with this approach is that most criminals have relatively short careers,
which has support of some researches.
44
 Another variation of the incapacitation rationale is Selective incapacitation.
REHABILITATION
 Retribution, deterrence and incapacitation involve a process of thinking that

proceeds the crime to the punishment.
 Rehabilitation is most complex notion than others, involving an examination of the

offender and the criminal, and the concern for the criminal’s social, psychological
and biological background & punishment.
 Rehabilitation assumes that offender must not re-offend/repeat offending.
 Rehabilitation involves application of various methods, vocational training is the

most practical form of rehabilitation.
 Rehabilitation theory regards crime as the symptom of a social/psychological or

biological disease & sees the aim of rehabilitation as curing that disease through
treatment(Bean).
 Indeterminate types of sentences are building blocks of this philosophy.
 The demise of rehabilitation as theory of punishment began in the 1970. Martinson

(1974) who argued that ‘nothing works ‘; that is, no treatment program works
very successfully in preventing re-offending.
DETERRENCE
 J Bentham was the founder of deterrent theory which justifies punishment as a

deterrent to the offenders punished and to others in community.
 It is designed to deter future crime; it frightens other citizens so much that they will
not do what the defendant did.
 If the purpose of punishing the offender that he avoids doing criminal act deterring
by punishment is called specific deterrence.
 The general deterrence principle in economic term is ‘pay the price of a crime’.
45
 The hedonistic assumption is that the people regulate their behavior by calculation
of pleasure and pain. The potential offender evaluates all possibilities and chooses
that activity which maximize his utility (William E. Cobb)
 It acts on belief that man `acts rationally, therefore he is completely responsible for
his acts.
 It advocates the certainty, swift and severity of punishment.
 Critisim
 Using a punishment, a deterrence has the fundamental flaw that human
nature turns to ignore the possibility of punishment until they are caught.
 A question, however, arises as to whether punishment really deters the

offenders in future or other members in the community? Studies made in this
regard by Schwartz revealed that sanctions did have some effect or minor
offences like tax violations but in the matter of complex offences like
murder, even the extreme threat of death menalty has not proved to have a
much deterrent effect on the criminals.
 Prison problems are defined as baggage of unsolvable issues related with

prison inmate
Notes#6
Theory of Rehabilitation
 The retribution, deterrence an incapacitation involve a process of thinking that
proceeds from the Crime to Punishment.
 Rehabilitation is most complex notion than other; involving an examination of the

offender and criminal, and the concern for the criminals social backgroung &
punishment.
 Rehabilitation assumes offender violated law due to inner or outer factors beyond
his control.
46
 Rehabilitation involves application of various methods; vocational training is the

most practical form of rehabilitation.
 Rehabilitation theory regards crime as the symptom of a social/ Psychological or

biological disease & sees the aim of rehabilitation as curing that disease through
treatment (Bean).
 Bean gives strengths of the rehabilitation position as being its emphasis on the
personal lives of offenders, its treatment of people as individuals, and its capacity
to produce new thinking in an otherwise rigid penal system.
 He also suggest its weaknesses include an unwarranted assumption that crime is

related to disease & that social experts can diagnose that condition; treatment
programs are open-ended & do not relate to the offense, and the fact that the
offender not being seen as fully responsible for his actions, is capable of
manipulating the treatment to serve his or her own interests.
 Vocational Programs: one of the oldest ideas in prison programming is to give the
prisoner as skill that can help to make him/her comtitor in the social marketplace.
 Psychological programs: This aims at making common man or offender in its

previous condition of mind, through psychotherapy etc.
 Behaviour programs: According to this idea, what needs reformation is not the
offender’s mind or emotions but his or her behaviour.
 Social programs: We use the term social therapy to denote these programs
because they attempted to develop a pro-social environment within prison to help
the offender develop non-criminal ways of coping outside. They are based on idea
that people learn lawbreaking values and behaviour in social settings from peers to
whom they attach importance. So those values should be altered.
 Indeterminate types of sentences are building blocks of this philosophy.
 The demise of rehabilitation as theory of punishment began in the 1970. Martinson

(1974) who argued that ‘nothing works’; that is, that no treatment program works
very successfully in preventing re-offending.
47
 Later he attempted to rectify this pessimistic view of rehabilitation & treatment by

acknowledging that some programs work, sometime for some types of offenders.
 The objective of reform or rehabilitation is to reintegrate the offender in society

after a period of punishment and to design the content of punishment as to achieve
this ………
 There was a growth of human social science, which admitted the idea of criminal
behaviour as caused by psychological and environmental factors suspect able to
change. Reforms, rehabilitation is therefore associated with ‘modernism’ and
‘positivism’, mean belief in the possibility of change and improvement through the
application of science to human behaviour.
 Although now a day’s penal reformers try to discourage the use of imprisonment
on the ground of acts tending to make people worse rather that better, it must be
remembered that when imprisonment changed from being a means. Primarily for
holding people awaiting bail or deportation, to being primarily a mode of
punishment, it was being a primarily, a mode of punishment, it was being
introduced as an alternative to death or transformation not as an alternative to
probation or community service.
 In recent decades theory of criminality has been linked with possession of an extra
X-chromosomes, meso-morphic body shapes, extra amount of testosterone, shifef
eyes etc.
Lecture#9
Theories of Punishment
 The retribution concept of punishment relies on the basis on spiritual explanation

of crime. (Most early)
48
 Retributive Justice is a matter of giving people their Jus Deserts. The central idea is
that the offender has gained unfair advantages through his or her behaviour, and
that the punishment will set this imbalance straight.
 Retributive Justice requires that the severity of the punishment be proportionate to

the crime.
 The doctrine of hell was framed in terms of retributive theory of punishment, the
wicked receiving their just deserts, with no thought of the possible reformation of
the offender.
 A retributionist assumes that the law exists for a reason —a moral reason. All
crime, even victimless crime, involves a social harm—a moral harm. In other
words, violating the law not only offends against the law of the land, but the moral
code of the land.
 Retributive assumption holds that each offender must be punished; even if the
victim wishes to forgive the offender must be punished, even if the victim wishes
to forgive the offender or extend mercy.
CRITICISM
 Bentham questioned whether there really is a moral duty of retribution. How can
one act of violence cancel out another evil act?
 Further utilitarians have criticized the retributive approach on the ground that it has
no social utility.
 Another argument put forward is that if individuals have no right to exact

retribution, how group of individuals (state) in the society can acquire such right?
 Punishment must as an instrument for reducing crimes by deterring the offender

and others from doing similar acts in future or it must prevent the commission of
OFFENCES BY INCAPACITATING THE OFFENDERS.
DETERRENCE THEORY
Deterrence theory:
49
 Follows from choice theory
 Juveniles commit crime because they choose to do so
 The choice is based in perceived risks and benefits
 If the risk outweighs the benefit they will most likely not commit the act
 Two types of deterrence:
 General
 Specific
General Deterrence
o Discourages would be delinquents from committing delinquent

acts because the threat of punishment is real
o The Fear of punishment outweighs the benefits of the acts
Specific Deterrence
o Is designed to impose a sanction on an adjudicated delinquent to

prevent them from committing additional delinquent acts
o Imposing stiff sanctions on a juvenile for committing an offense

or delinquent act
o Do six months of community service every weekend and you

may think twice before you do something to get in trouble again
THE ASSUMPTIONS OF DETERRENCE
 Individuals are rational actors
 Weigh potential risk against benefits
 Juveniles are aware of sanction/penalty
 The risks associated with punishment are unpleasant
 The sanction must be:
 Swift
50
 Certain
 Severe
51

Penology

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Penology

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sir Hyder Ali Memon CRIMINOLOGY-2 PENOLOGY

At present, the expression "penology" covers:

1) Research on social consequences of punishment (punishment functions);

2) Analysis of theoretical aspects and practical experiences in internal mechanisms

3) Theoretical research on punishment grounds, i.e. axiology, ideology,

As a result of such polymorphic research interests, penology, depending on the research

a) Philosophical Reflections on Punishment It differs however by drawing in its

b) Anglo—Saxon approach of Criminal Justice Studies (or German Sanktions

basis, always draw on general axiological foundations of the society, reflections on

In Poland, the first handbook of criminal law had been

In Anglo – Saxon literature, the beginnings of penology as

Firstly, its development is thought to be stimulated by the reformist,

Secondly, its emergence is considered to stem from the development of

sociological analysis of the institutions of justice, the historical description of penal

In historical terms, the scope and forms of institutionalization of penological

Penology as a Scientific Discipline

Secondly, axiological foundations, i.e. those related to the substantiation of

Thirdly, epistemological foundations, defining research on criminal punishment

Penology endeavors to give, within a given perspective, the comprehensive justification

While penitentiary sciences are accurately classified among criminological

Similarly to Anglo—Saxon tradition, some Polish sources consider penology as a

Simultaneously, much neglect was caused to scientific thinking on their

still misses unquestionable theoretical justification and axiological foundations. That

Penological theory of punishment should be, as it has already been stated by

Penology may be considered as some separate set of interdisciplinary subjects

Penology remains a modern discipline as it draws on works from other different

Penology Vs. Pedagogy and Sociology of Education

Penology sees the criminal punishment as a social institution. The notion of

Social institutions, in their specific organizational forms, may be classified into

4.Economic institutions which regulate the production and distribution of goods;

Criminal punishment should never be confused with punishment in education, which

It cannot be scientifically confirmed that any type of social institution is a

From the perspective of culturally integrated penology , in such approach,

may relate to alternative measures of different, also none—repressive forms of

The treatment of criminals has always been motivated by

2) abstract philosophies, ideologies, and religious beliefs regarding punishment;

3) prevailing theories of crime causation.

Revenge and restraint

Beccaria and Modern Penology

Reformation and the Reformatory Movement

PROBATION AND PAROLE

If granted by a court as an alternative to incarceration, this release is generally called

If granted by an administrative agency to someone who already has served part of a

Classification and Individual Treatment

Cesare Lombroso, ascribed crime to biological inheritance;

Psychologists first emphasized imbecility, and later the emotional disturbances of

Sociologists called attention to deviant subcultures and to the influence of social

The classification process in correctional institutions begins with medical and

At the sociological level, punishment is characteristically defined in terms of collective

The Crime of Punishment

Formal and Informal Punishment

Informal punishment is of course extensively used in a wide variety of

Understanding factors influencing penal policy

indignation. A key feature of punishment is that it rests on a moral foundation expressing

- What particular response is made to an action or behavior and why? I.e.

2. Penology is also concerned with questions of equality, fairness and justice

5. Influence of public opinion on penal policy. It is a key variable in shaping

Influence of theory on penal law and practice

1. Principles from criminology and penology: These principles are the

punishment. E.g. where the individual is seen as autonomous or possessive, free

3. Classical theories of punishment: The principle justification of

Sentencing and Discretion

In a principle sentencing system, the exercise of discretion by the sentence must be

legal or religious and by a framework of rules. Further, in a democracy, sentencing may