The Deterrent Effect of Criminal Punishments: An Analysis of Harsher Penalties in India

The Deterrent Effect of Criminal Punishments: An Analysis of Harsher Penalties in India

Introduction

The concept of deterrence has long been at the heart of criminal justice systems worldwide. Any crime will ultimately result in punishment. The idea that individuals can be dissuaded from engaging in criminal activities through the threat of punitive measures has guided legal systems for centuries. The person is punished not only because he has committed an illegal act but also to ensure that no crime should be committed again.

Deterrence is of two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence.

The goal of general deterrence is to stop people from committing the same crimes as those who have already been found guilty of them. General deterrence is more concerned with educating the populace as a whole, not simply those who have been charged with a crime.

On the other hand, specific kind of deterrence affects a particular person. A criminal will be discouraged from committing similar crimes in the future if he receives a harsh punishment for his misdeeds, according to the theory of specific deterrence.

This article delves into the complex web of criminal deterrence, examining the Indian legal landscape, and assessing whether stringent punishments indeed act as a deterrent.

I. Deterrence Theory: A Foundation

The fundamental principle of deterrence theory is that potential offenders will weigh the potential costs and benefits of engaging in criminal activities before deciding to commit a crime. To make this theory work, penalties must be perceived as severe enough to outweigh the perceived benefits of the crime.

II. Lengthy Prison Sentences

Divergent viewpoints have been expressed in the context of India about the argument regarding the deterrent power of hefty prison sentences. In circumstances of serious crimes, the Indian justice system has a reputation for applying draconian punishments. The world and the country were stunned by the Nirbhaya gang rape case, which led to the adoption of the death penalty and the execution of the perpetrators of the crime. Many contend that hefty punishments do really act as a potent deterrent in light of this instance and several others like it.


III. Higher Fines

Fines are another punitive tool in the criminal justice system, aimed at deterring individuals from committing crimes. In India, the debate around the effectiveness of higher fines as a deterrent is seen primarily in cases of traffic violations. The Motor Vehicles Act of 2019 significantly increased fines for various offenses, such as overspeeding, drunk driving, and driving without a license.
The evidence suggests that increased penalties have actually resulted in fewer traffic infractions. According to a SaveLife Foundation study, states with stricter enforcement of the increased penalties saw a decrease in traffic infractions and fatalities on the roads. This suggests that monetary penalties have a dissuasive effect, especially when they are severe enough to be a real burden.
This does not, however, inevitably pertain to additional criminal activity. Traffic infractions and crimes like theft, robbery, or fraud have very different economic implications and potential penalties. For these offences, the cost-benefit equation is more complicated, and heftier fines might not always serve as a meaningful deterrence, especially for people who are already struggling financially. The discrepancies in the criminal justice system must be acknowledged, and deterrence measures must be tailored as a result.

IV. Case Studies from Indian Jurisprudence

1. **Deterrent Effect in Rape Cases**:
The landmark case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Singh highlighted the harsh consequences of rape convictions. The accused was sentenced to death for the rape of a minor. While the severity of the penalty underscored the court’s commitment to protecting the vulnerable, the case does not provide conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters potential rapists, as sexual violence continues to be a pressing issue in India.

2. **Deterrent Effect in Corruption Cases**:
A sensitive topic has been the prosecution of public servants and politicians in corruption cases. Selvi J. Jayalalitha, the former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, was found guilty of corruption and given a four-year prison sentence in the case State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha. This case serves as a crucial illustration of how criminal sanctions are used in high-profile corruption cases. Given the pervasiveness of corruption in Indian politics, it is still questionable if such convictions successfully dissuade public officials from participating in corrupt behaviour.


3. **Effectiveness of Higher Fines in Traffic Violations**:
As previously mentioned, the Motor Vehicles Act of 2019 increased fines for traffic violations. States like Gujarat and Odisha have been successful in implementing and enforcing these higher fines, resulting in a notable decrease in road accidents and violations. This suggests that substantial financial penalties can indeed serve as a deterrent in specific contexts.

Conclusion

The question of whether harsher penalties, such as longer prison sentences or higher fines, effectively deter individuals from engaging in criminal activities in India is a complex and multifaceted issue.
The effectiveness of harsh penalties in deterring potential offenders depends on several factors, including the nature of the crime, the efficiency of the legal system, and the socio-economic background of the offenders. Moreover, the concept of deterrence is not solely about punishment; it also encompasses prevention, education, and social reforms. In conclusion, while harsher penalties can play a role in deterring criminal activities, they should be part of a more comprehensive approach to crime prevention and rehabilitation.

Author:- Shivanshi Shukla, a Student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

FAQ

1. What is the deterrent theory of punishment in India?

   Answer: The deterrent theory of punishment in India, like in many other countries, is based on the idea that imposing punishments, such as fines or imprisonment, serves as a deterrent to potential offenders. It aims to discourage individuals from committing crimes by making them aware of the consequences they might face if they engage in unlawful activities. This theory assumes that the fear of punishment will dissuade people from breaking the law.

2. Which type of deterrent punishment is defined as general deterrence?

Answer: General deterrence is a type of punishment that aims to deter potential offenders in the wider population by making an example of a particular individual or group, sending a message that certain behaviors will be met with severe consequences.

3. What are the 3 components of deterrence theory?

Answer: The three components of deterrence theory are:

1. Deterrent Threat: The clear communication of consequences for certain actions.
2. Capability: The ability to carry out the threat effectively.
3. Credibility: The perception that the threat will be carried out if necessary

4. What are the features of deterrence?