Criminology

Crime & Criminology

The conduct which are prohibited by the existing law at a given time and place a
re known as wrongful acts or crime. In fact, crime is a constant phenomenon chan
ging with the social transformation. Historically, the concept of crime seems to
have always been changing with the variations in social conditions during the e
volutionary stages of human society.
Primitive societies did not recognize any distinction between the law of crime a
nd torts but only knew law of wrongs. During this period, recourse to legal reme
dy was considered merely an optional alternative to self-redress. The wrongdoer
was supposed to offer compensation to the person wronged, the quantum of which d
epended on the extent of the wrong caused and status of the sufferer. The paymen
t of compensation washed away the guilt of the wrongdoer and relegated him to a
position as if he had done no wrong.
However, if compensation was refused, the law had no other means to enforce its
payment. In that event, it was for the victim or his kindred to prosecute a blood
-feud against the wrongdoer and law could help him only by declaring the wrongdoe
r as an outlaw who could be chased and killed by anyone like a wild beast.
According to Dharamsastra writers ordeal was a living institution in India. Ancien
t writers have referred to the ordeals as divine methods with various names. Ord
eals were treated as a divine means of proof about guilt or innocence of the acc
used. The two important aspects of ordeals were: (i) they indicated the divine a
spect of trial, and (ii) the basic idea underlying this method of trial was the
need of divine intervention at a crucial moment in dispensing justice. Yajnavalky
a mentions five kinds of ordeals Balance, Fire, Water, Poison and Kosa.
It was once believed that some persons inherit devilish tendencies by birth. The
y, were therefore, known as born criminals or criminals by nature and were consi
dered incorrigibles. The only way to keep them off was their complete eliminatio
n from the society. In the middle of the 18th century Beccaria, the pioneer of m
odern criminology advanced his classical theory founded on free will; of the indi
vidual. Through a series of systematic reserches he successfully exploded the th
eory of born criminals and established that everyone is master of his ownself and
is free to act what he wants. Thus a man resorts to criminal act out of his inte
lligence and free will; Beccaria s ufree will theory challenged by the positivists
, Lombrose and Tarde who suggested that man is not self-determining agent free t
o act as he desires but is fundamentally a biological organism. It is, free to a
ct as he desires but is fundamentally a biological organism. It is, therefore, t
he biological consideration which determines his acts and behaviour. Every perso
n, as a biological creature tries to adjust himself to social environment. With
the advance of knowledge and development of criminal science, it was gradually r
ealized that no one is a born criminal but it is the circumstances that make him
so; not because he wants to be a criminal but he is rather forced to lends into
criminality.
The change in civilization, culture and advancement of scientific knowledge brou
ght about a change in the concept of crime which eventually led to the emergence
of criminology as an independent branch of knowledge.
The concept of crime is closely related to social policy of a given time. With c
hanges in ideologies the concept of crime also changes. That is to say, certain
new crimes spring up whereas some existing crimes become obsolete and, therefore
, they are deleted through adequate changes in the criminal law. The criminal la
w has often been considered as a barometer to gauge the moral turpitude of the s
ociety at a given time.
In the opinion of Sociologists, every anti-social act emanates from some crimino
genic tendency which needs to be cured by society. Thus they attempt toe correla
te the concept of crime with other sociological and environment factors.
Many writers have defined crime as an anti-social, immoral or sinful behaviour. Ga
rafalo, preferred sociological definition of crime and stated that crime is an a
ct which offends the basic sentiments of pity and probity . Yet another view about cr
ime is to treat is as an anti social behaviour which is injurious to society. Ga

rafalo, observed that crime is an immoral and harmful act that is regarded as cri
minal by public opinion because it is an injury to so much of the moral sense as
is possessed by a community
According to Stephen, crime means an act which is both forbidden by law and revo
lting to the moral sentiments of society.
Judicial approach to criminology suggests that an act to become a rime must conf
orm to two cardinal principles of criminal liability, namely:(i) no one is held criminally liable unless he has done an act which is expressl
y forbidden under the existing criminal law of the land and has a reprehensible
state of mind to do it.
(ii) no one can be punished for an act unless it is made punishable under the la
w.
An obvious way of defining crime is in legal terms, to distinguish it from sin,
religious and moral wrongs. A legal definition gives a basic premise in which th
e pitfalls resulting from individual or group opinion are avoided.
According to the legal definition, crime is any form of conduct which is declared
to be socially harmful in a State and as such forbidden by law under pain of som
e punishment. Paul W. Tappan, defined crime as, an intentional act or omission in
violation of criminal law, committed without any defence or justification and p
enalized by the law as felony or misdemeanour.
In other words it could be said as, an act or omission in violation of criminal
law, since any defence or justification is to be found within the criminal law,
and there is no question for a particular act or omission in certain circumstanc
es. Further, it is not necessary for an act or omission in certain circumstances
. Further, it is not necessary for an act or omission to be intentional in order
to be a crime; it could be made punishable on the basis of knowledge, recklessn
ess or negligence or even without any reference to the mental element of the wro
ngdoer i.e. based on the concept of strict responsibility.
Halsbury, defines crime as unlawful act which is an offence against the public a
nd the perpetrator of that act is liable to legal punishment.
The exponents of each one of the above schools accuse the other of being unscien
tific in approach. The legal definition has been criticized on the ground that w
hether any act or omission is recognized as crime at a given time in a society d
epends upon values which are relative and not on any intrinsic worth of the act
or omission and that makes the study of crime unscientific. The categories set u
p by the criminal law are of a fortuitous nature and do not arise intrinsically fr
om the nature of the subject-matter the scientists attempt to analyze. This char
ge of variation in the legal attitude towards various acts is countered by the s
upporters of the legalistic approach by pointing out that not only do the legal
norms vary due to various circumstances but also all the social norms which are
essentially relative and impermanent. Criminal law not only given precise defini
tion of forbidden acts but also has the machinery and procedure to determine the
violation and, the5refore, is able to identify the offenders, which is not poss
ible in cases where certain conduct is branded as criminal in social terms irres
pective of prevailing legal notions. This certainly is the advantage in the lega
l definition over the social one despite the various inherent weaknesses of crim
inal law processes like non-prosecution of many offenders, the possibility of fa
lse conviction, greater possibility of failure to convict all guilty persons and
of innumerable cases remaining unreported to the police, the best exposition of
the case for legal definition has been made by Paul W. Tappan, as :
The validity of this contention must depend, of course, upon that the nature of
the subject-matter is. These scholars suggest that, as a part of the general stu
dy of human behaviour, criminology should concern itself broadly with all anti-s
ocial conduct, behaviour injurious to society. We take it that anti-social condu
ct is essentially any sort of behaviour which violates some social interest. Wha
t are these social interests which are weighty enough to merit the concern of th
e sociologist, to bear the odium? What shall constitute a violation of them? Par
ticularly where, as is so commonly true in our complicated and unintegrated soci
ety, these interests are themselves in conflict? Roscoe Pound s suggestive classif
ication of the social interests served by law is valuable in a juristic framewor

k, but it solves no problem for the sociologist who seeks to depart from legal s
tandards in search of all manner of anti-social behaviour. However desirable may
be the concept of socially injurious conduct for purpose of general or abstract
description, it does not define what is injurious. It sets no standard and it d
oes not discriminate cases, but merely invites the subjective value-judgment of
the investigator.
From the forgoing definitions, it may be said that a crime is a wrong to society
involving the breach of a legal wrong which has criminal consequences attached
to it, i.e. prosecution by the State in the criminal court and the possibility o
f punishment being imposed on the wrongdoer.
The issue is in favour of the legal definition by observing that convicted crimi
nals represent the closest possible approximation of those who have in fact viol
ated the law even if this group may not be complete or fully representative of a
ll those who have committed crime.
Broadly speaking, every criminal behaviour must respond to the following tests i
n order to be reckoned as a crime:(i) There should be an external act (Actus).
(ii) It should be done with some criminal intent (mens rea).
(iii) It should be prohibited conduct under the existing law, and
(iv) It should carry with it some kind of punishment.
Criminology as a branch of knowledge is concerned with those particular conducts
of human behaviour which are prohibited by society. It is, therefore, a socio-l
egal study which seeks to discover the cause of criminality and suggests remedie
s to reduce crimes.
Even if the legal definition of crime is accepted in preference to the social de
finition for the study of criminology, it does not provide any guide as to what
kind of human conduct should be declared criminal . It is true that in most of the
crimes there is the common element of immorality and the harmful nature of the a
cts constituting crime. This is particularly true of traditional crime known as
mala in se. But there are various other offences in which there is no eleme4nt o
f immorality in the traditional sense, these are known as mala in prohibita, and
, on the other hand, there are many acts which are not crimes, despite the eleme
nt of immorality being present in the accepted sense. What conduct should be mad
e criminal depends not only on the question whether the conduct is moral or immo
ral but also on the considerations of the possibility of its implementation thro
ugh the legal machinery.
Paul W. Tappan was of the opinion that criminology is synonymous with the sociol
ogy of criminal law. The view that crime is an undesirable social behaviour is i
n particular reflected in the field of juvenile delinquency since delinquency is
wider term than criminality.
Even when the word crime is used in the legal sense by criminologists, it is not
all types of violation of criminal law which would fall within the domain of cr
iminology as the proper subject of study. In contemporary society many offences
have been created which are known as social welfare offences based on strict respo
nsibility. They are different from traditional crimes and, therefore, mala in pr
ohibita and not mala in se. The concept of mala in Prohibita almost concides wit
h the modern notion of public welfare offences .
The widening of the area of crime by public welfare offences has been caused due t
o the tremendous governmental activity almost everywhere in the world to deal wi
th various socio-economic problems.

Schools Of Criminology
The Pre-Classical School:
The history of primitive societies and early medieval period reveals that human
thinking in those days was predominated by religious mysticism and all human rel
ations were regulated through myths, superstitions and religious tenets prevaili
ng in a particular society. There was a general belief that man by nature is sim
ple and his actions are controlled by some super powers. It was generally believ
ed that a man commits crime due to the influence of some external spirits. They
considered crime and criminals as an evidence of the fact that the individual wa
s possessed of devil and the only cure for which was testimony of the effectiven
ess of the spirit. Worships, sacrifices and ordeals by water and fire were usual
ly prescribed to specify the spirit and relieve the victim from its evil influen
ces. Ever since the time of Manu it has been repeatedly argued that ordeals are
the creations of Brahma and have been practiced by gods, great sages and all tho
ughtful persons.
The pre-classical thinking, however, withered away with the lapse of time and ad
vancement of knowledge. Though these practices appear to be most irrational and
barbarious to the modern mind, they were universally accepted and were in existe
nce in most countries.
The Classical School:
During the Middle of 18th century, a systematic study of criminology was first t
aken by the Italian scholar Beccaria who is known as father of modern criminolog
y. His greatest contribution to the science of criminology was that he for the f
irst time proceeded with the study of criminals on a scientific basis and reache
d certain conclusions from which definite methods of handling crime and criminal
s could be worked out. He expounded his naturalistic theory of criminality by re
jecting the omnipotence of evil spirit. He laid greater emphasis on mental pheno
menon of the individual and attributed crime to free will of the individual. Thus
he w as much influenced by the Utilitarian Philosophy of his time which placed rel
iance on hedonism, namely, the Pain and pleasure theory . He sought to humanize the
criminal law by insisting on natural rights of human beings. Beccaria s tightly r
easoned argument can be summarized in relatively simple terms:(1) In order to escape war and chaos, individuals gave up some of their liberty
and established a contractual society.
(2) Because criminal laws placed restrictions on individual freedoms, they shoul
d be restricted in scope. They should not be employed to enforce moral values.
(3) The presumption of innocence should be the guiding principle in the administ
ration of justice, and at all stages of the justice process the rights of all pa
rties involved should be protected.
(4) The complete criminal law code should be written and should define all offen
ces and punishments in advance.
(5) Punishment should be based on retributive reasoning because the guilty had a
ttacked another individual s rights.
(6) The severity of the punishment should be limited and it should not go beyond
what is necessary for crime prevention and deterrence.
(7) Criminal punishment should correspond with the seriousness of the crime; the
punishment should fit the crime, not the criminal.
(8) Punishment must be a certainty and should be inflicted quickly.
(9) Punishment should not be administered to set an example, neither should it b
e concerned with reforming the offender.
(10) The offender should be viewed as an independent and reasonable person.
Benthem was greatly influenced by Beccaria and carried on the work in the same d
irection subsequently. Benthem like Beccaria, was an outright Utilitarian and to
him the only rational basis of any law could be the greatest happiness of the g
reatest numbers. The principle, known as Utilitarian Hedonism, requires that pun
ishment, being an evil in itself, should not exceed more than what is absolutely
necessary to produce the desired effect on the criminal and society.
The contribution of Classical School to the development of rationalized criminol
ogical thinking was by no means less important, nevertheless, it had its own pit

falls. The major shortcoming of the classical school was that it proceeded on an
abstract presumption of free will and relied solely on the act without devoting
any attention to the state of mind of the criminal. It erred in prescribing equ
al punishment for same offence thus making no distinction between first offender
s and habitual criminals. However, the greatest achievement of this school of cr
iminology lies in the fact that it suggested a substantial criminal policy which
was easy to administer without resort to the imposition of arbitrary punishment
.
Neo-Classical School:
The free will theory of Classical School did not survive for long. It was realized
that this approach ignored the individual differences under certain situations.
The neo-classists asserted that certain categories of offenders such as minor,
idiots, insane or incompetent had to be treated leniently irrespective of the si
milarity of their criminal act because these persons were incapable of appreciat
ing the difference between right and wrong. This tendency of neo-classicists to
distinguish criminals according to their mental depravity was indeed a progressi
ve step inasmuch as it emphasized the need for modifying the classical view. The
conditions under which a criminal commits a crime was studied first time in thi
s theory.
Neo-classists approached the study of criminology on scientific lines by recogni
zing that certain extenuating situations or mental disorders deprive a person of
his normal capacity to control his conduct. They supported individualization of
offender and treatment methods. The distinction between responsibility and irre
sponsibility, i.e. the sanity and insanity of the criminals paved way to subsequ
ent formulation of different correctional institutions. Neo-classists adopted su
bjective approach to criminology and concentrated their attention on the conditi
ons under which an individual commits crime.
The main contribution of the neo-classical school of criminology lies in the fac
t that it came out with certain concessions in the free will theory of classical s
chool and suggested that an individual might commit criminal acts due to certain
extenuating circumstances which should be duly taken into consideration at the
time of awarding punishment.
The Positive School:
With the advance of behavioural sciences, the monogenetic explanation of human c
onduct lost its validity and new trend to adopt an eclectic view about the genes
is of crime gradually developed. By the 19th of century, certain French doctors
were successfully establishing that it was neither free will of the offender nor h
is innate depravity which actuated him to commit crime but the real cause of cri
minality lay in anthropological features of the criminal. This led to emergence
of Positive School of criminology.
The most significant difference between the classical school and the positivist
school is the latter s search for empirical facts to confirm the idea that crime w
as determined by multiple factor. They primarily emphasized the mind and the bod
y of the criminal, thus to some extent neglecting social factors external to the
individual.
The modern search for multifactor explanations of crime is usually attributed to
Lombroso, an Italian often called the father of modern criminology . Lombroso, a s
pecialist in psychiatry, was serving as army physician handling the mentally aff
licted soldiers at various military posts. For Lombroso the objective search for
explaining human behaviour meant disagreement with free will philosophy. Lombro
so made observations on tattooing, particularly the more obscene designs which h
e felt distinguished infractious soldiers. Later Lombroso used the practice of t
attooing as a distinguishing characteristic of criminals.
Lombroso adopted an objective and empirical approach to the study of criminals t
hrough his anthropological experiments. After an intensive study of physical cha
racteristics of his patients and later on of criminals, he came to definite conc
lusion that criminals were physically inferior in the standard of growth and, th
erefore, developed a tendency for interior acts. He further generalized that cri
minals are less sensitive to pain and therefore they have little regard for the
sufferings of others. Thus through his biological and anthropological researches

on criminals Lombroso justified the involvement of Darwin s theory of biological

determinism in criminal behaviour .
The central tenet of Lombroso s early explanations of crime is that criminals repr
esent a peculiar physical type, distinctively different from non-criminals. In g
eneral terms, he claimed that criminals represent a form of degeneracy that was
manifested in physical characteristics reflective of earlier forms of evolution.
He described criminals as atavistic, a thrownback to an earlier form of evoluti
onary life.
Lombroso classified criminals into four major categories:
(i) The born criminals, people with atavistic characteristics. He considered the
se criminals beyond ;
(ii) Insane criminals, who included idiots, imbeciles, and paranoiacs, as well a
s epileptics and alcoholics;
(iii) Occasional criminals or criminolids, whose crimes are explained primarily
by opportunity, although they too have innate traits that predispose them to cri
minality. They have a tendency to commit crime to overcome their inferiority in
order to meet the needs of survival; and
(iv) Criminals of passion who commit crimes because of anger, love or honour. Th
ey are characterized by being propelled to crime by an irresistible force .
Lombroso modified his theory throughout five editions with each one giving atten
tion more and more environmental explanations including climate, rainfall, sex,
marriage customs, laws, the structure of government, church organization, and th
e effects of the other factors. However, he never completely gave up the idea of
the existence of a born criminal type.
Most noteworthy here is the attention he gave to a multifactor explanation of cr
ime that included not only heredity but social, cultural, and economic variables
. He was positive in method and objective in approach which subsequently paved w
ay to formulation of multiple-causation theory of crime by the sociologists. The
multiple factor explanation is common in today s study of crime. Lombroso is cred
ited also with pushing the study of crime away from abstract metaphysical, legal
, and juristic explanations as the basis of penology to a scientific study of the
criminal and the conditions under which he commits crime.
Lombroso s legacy of positivism was continued and expanded by a fellow Italian, En
rico Ferri. Unlike Lombroso who gave more attention to biological than to social
factors, Ferri gave more emphasis to the interrelatedness of social, economic,
and political factors that contribute to crime. He firmly believed that other fa
ctors such as emotional reactions, social infirmity or geographical conditions a
lso play a vital role in determining criminal tendencies in men. He argued that
criminality could be explained by studying the interactive effects among physica
l factors, individual factors and social factors. He also argued that crime coul
d be controlled by social changes, many of which were directed toward the benefi
t of the working class.
In the first four editions of his work Ferri had only five classes of criminals:
(i) The born of instinctive criminal whom Lombroso had identified as the atavist
;
(ii) The insane criminals who was clinically identified as mentally ill;
(iii) The passion criminal who committed crime as a result of either prolonged a
nd chronic mental problem or an emotional state;
(iv) The occasional criminal who was the product of family and social conditions
more than abnormal physical or mental problems; and
(v) The habitual criminal who acquired the habit from the social environment.
In the fifth edition of his work he added a new explanation of crime, the involu
ntary criminal.
After Lombroso and Ferri, Raffele Garofalo was the last major contributor to the
positivist school of criminology. Unlike Lombroso s emphasis on criminals as abno
rmal types with distinguishable anatomic, psychological and social features, or
Ferri s emphasis on socialistic reforms and social defenses against crime, Garofal
o is remembered for his pursuit of practical solutions to concrete problems loca
ted in the legal institutions of his day and for his doctrine of natural crimes .
Garofalo s theoretical arguments on the nature of crime and on the nature of crimi

nals were consistent with social Darwinism. He argued, for example, that because
society is a natural body crimes are offences against the law of nature . Criminal a
ction was therefore crime against nature. Accordingly, the rules of nature were th
e rules of right conduct revealed to humans through their reasoning. Garofalo s th
inking also included some influence from the classical school and its emphasis o
n reasoning. He nevertheless identified acts that no society could refuse to rec
ognize as criminal and repress by punishment: natural crimes. These offences, ac
cording to Garofalo, violated two basic human sentiments found among people all
ages, namely the sentiments of probity and pity.
He argued that true criminals lacked properly developed altruistic sentiments. T
rue criminals, in other words, had psychic or moral anomalies that could be tran
smitted through heredity. This conclusion led Garofalo to identify four criminal
classes one distinct from the other because of deficiencies in the basic sentim
ents of pity and probity:
(i) Murderers whom he called endemic criminals
(ii) Violent criminals who are affected by environmental influences such as prej
udices of honour, politics and religion;
(iii) Criminals lacking in sentiments of probity (Thieves);
(iv) Lascivious or lustful criminals who commit crimes against sex and chastity.
He reasoned that because true criminals action revealed an inability to live by t
he basic human sentiments necessary for society to survive, they should be elimi
nated. Their death would contribute to the survival or society. For lesser crimi
nals, he proposed that elimination take the form of life imprisonment or oversea
s transportation.
It is clear that deterrence and rehabilitation were secondary considerations for
Garofalo. However, he favoured enforced reparation and indeterminate sentences, w
hich indicates that Garofalo s social defenses against crime were modeled to some
extent on the psychic characteristics of the offender. In this regard his positi
on of punishment is more in line with the free will reasoning of the classical s
cholars than Garofalo might admit.
He strongly pleaded for elimination of habitual offenders who were incapable of
social adaptation as a measure of social defence.
Ernest A. Hooton, proceeded to a detailed analysis of the measurements of crimin
als and non-criminals from eight different states. He argued that criminals are i
nferior to civilians in nearly all of their bodily measurements . He also reported
that low foreheads indicated inferiority and that a depressed physical and socia
l environment determines Negro and Negroid delinquency to a much greater extent
than it does in the cases of Whites .
These and similar conclusions generated severe criticism of Hooton s work, especia
lly the racist overtones and his failure to recognize that the prisoners he stud
ied did not represent criminal offenders who had not been caught or offenders wh
o had been quality but not convicted. His control group was criticized also for
not being representative of any known population of people. Hotoon was criticize
d also for treating some small difference in measurement as greatly significant
and for ignoring other differences that were found.
It is important to notice that despite the stinging criticism received by Hotoon
and by others who were searching for biological explanations, the search nevert
heless continued and expanded. The work by Sheldon, for shifting attention away
from adults to delinquent male youths. In an effort to link physiques to tempera
ment, intelligence, and delinquency. By relying on intense physical and psycholo
gical examinations, Sheldon produced an Index to Delinquency that was used to give
a quick and easy profile of each male s problems.
Sheldon classified the boys physiques by measuring the degree to which they posse
ssed a combination of three different body components. The three components were
:
(i) endomorphy;
(ii) Mesomorphy; and
(iii) Ectomorphy.
Each could dominate a physique. Endomorphs tended to be soft, fat people; mesomo

rphis had muscular and athletic builds; ectomorphs had skinny, flat, and fragile
physiques.
Sheldon concluded that because youths came from parents who were delinquent in v
ery much the same way that the boys were delinquent, in very much the same way t
hat the boys were delinquent, the factors that produce delinquency were inherite
d.
The greatest contribution of positive school to the development of criminal scie
nce lies in the fact that the attention of criminologists was drawn for the firs
t time towards the individual, that is the personality of criminal rather than h
is act or punishment. The positive school introduced the methology and logic of
natural science in the field of criminology. The positivist school also helped t
o usher in an approach to policy that was reformative rather than punitive in im
pulse. To be sure, the conclusion that offenders are characterized by unchangeab
le bodily or psychological characteristics leads logically to the conclusion tha
t offenders should be either eliminated, caged indefinitely, or altered physical
ly through instructive measures.

Individualistic Approach
(Crime Causation Theories)
Criminologists have always differed in their views regarding crime-causation. Co
ntinental criminologists often support the endogenous theory of criminality whic
h is founded on bio-physical consideration of criminals. The American criminolog
ists on the other hand, are more inclined to explain criminality in terms of soc
ial factors. Thus, the former approach the problem of crime-causation subjective
ly while the latter are objective in their approach. This subjective approach to
crime-causation has eventually led to the evolution of typological school of cr
iminology which suggests that there are certain personality type of criminals wh
o take to criminality because of their heredity, psychopathic and bio-physical t
raits. To many people, crime is a consequence of some faulty characteristic of t
he individual or the individual s life experiences. The Individualistic approach f
ocus attention on biological, mental and other characteristics of the offender t
o explain the cause of his delinquent behaviour.
The positive school of Italy focused its attention on the personality of the off
ender and rejected the free-will theory. They explained crime primarily in terms
of factors within the criminal, i.e. physical, biological and mental traits and
, therefore, either ignored external factors altogether or gave them secondary i
mportance. The main utility of Individualistic Theories is that for the first ti
me the focus of the attention was shifted from crime to the criminals.
Lombrosian is regarded as the father of modern criminology since he was the firs
t to employ scientific methods in explaining criminal behaviour and shifted the
emphasis from crime to the criminal. Lombrosian through their biological and ant
hropological researches succeeded in establishing a correlation between heredity
of the criminal and his criminogenic tendencies.
The psychiatrists, on the other hand, located crime in mental depravity of the c
riminals. Mental deficiency does not play any direct role in the causation of cr
iminal tendency in a person but indirectly it may be relevant because social adj
ustment can be more difficult for persons with low intelligence. The psychologis
ts explained crime in terms of personality deviations.

Lombroso s theories have been severely criticized by modern criminologists. It has

been pointed out that he used the term atavism loosely since physical traits of
criminals as well as social customs were regarded by him as of atavistic signif
icance. His assumption regarding some sort of nexus between atavism and criminal
behaviour has no scientific base. He also failed to appreciate that both crimin
al as well as non-criminal behaviours were the result of the process operating o
n the basis of various social and physical factors.
Biological differences in human personality also accounts for criminality in hum
an beings. The logic behind biological explanation of crime is that structure de
termines function and persons behave differently owing to the fact that they are
somehow structurally different. The physical and biological abnormalities are g
enerally responsible for criminal behaviour. Hooton attempted to show that crime
and other anti-social behaviours are due to physical and social factors. He see
med to vindicate Lombroso s anthropological findings about criminal behaviour. Aft
er an intensive study of prison inmates he concluded that prisoners differ from
non-criminals in various physical particulars that composed definite pattern of
physical inferiority.
Hooton said that, Criminals are organically inferior. Crime is the resultant of t
he impact of environment upon low grade human organism . He also tried to establis
h some nexus between the physical characteristics of the offenders and the type
of offences committed by them. His study disclosed that murders and robbers were
of tall and thin stature, thieves and burglars were undersized, while sexual of
fences and assaults were committed by persons of short and heavy constitution.
Hooton s studies was contradicted on various grounds. It was said that there was n
o such nexus by pointing out that half of the prisoners studied by Hootan were c
onvicted of different offences earlier. There is yet another defect as pointed i
n the studies undertaken by Hooton & Sheldon. The two have different ideas regar
ding physically inferior type of people. To Hooton the criminal is an inadequate
ly developed, runty fellow, while Sheldon chooses the husky and athletic type as
the typical criminal.
Sheldon tried to establish a co-relation between physical structure of the crimi
nal and the crime through what he called the application of constitutional theor
y to human behavioural problems. He developed his ideas from the fact that life
begins in the embryo which is made up of three different tissue layers, namely,
an inner layer called endoderm, a middle layer known as mesoderm and an outer la
yer or ectoderm. He correlated a corresponding physical and mental typology cons
istent with the known facts from embryology and the physiology of genetic develo
pment. He pointed out that physiologically, the endoderm gives rise to the devel
opment of digestive viscera, the mesoderm to bone, muscle and tendons of the mot
or-organ system, the ectoderm to connecting tissues of nervous system, skin and
related appendages. He summarized the basic characteristics of physique and temp
erament of these types of physical structure as follow:
(1) Endomorphic structure: They are persons with fatty or bulky body having shor
t tapering limbs, small bones, soft and smooth skin and are usually of mild temp
erament and comfortable persons.
(2) Mesomorphic Structure: Persons with such structure are strongly built with p
rominent muscles and bones and connective tissues. They have heavy chest and lar
ge wrists and hands. These persons are temperamentally somotonic, active, dynami
c, assertive and behave aggressively.
(3) Ectomorphic: Persons with ectomorphic structure are constitutionally lean an
d fragile with delicate body, small face, sharp nose and fine hair. They are sen
sitive by temperament and avoid crowds.
Sheldon further asserted that these physical structures were directly related to
temperament of the person who committed crime. Thus according to him, endomorph
ic were moody and accommodative by nature while the mesomorphics had a rigid and
somewhat serious temperament. The ectomorphics, on account of their delicate phys
ical built-up, are often shaky in their decisions and are short tempered. He att
ributes criminality to endomorphic and mesomorphics rather than the ectomorphics
.
While discussing the personality aspect of the criminal Taft lays emphasis on th

e effect of intelligence and its impact on crime causation. He asserts that pers
ons lacking in average intelligence are generally not aggressive, anti-social or
sexually promiscuous, but are rather inactive and timid. They easily lend into
criminality because they cannot foresee the possible consequences of their acts
and are unable to adjust to the complexities of modern life. Their incapability
to distinguish between right and wrong or to foresee the danger of detection is
yet another cause of their criminal behaviour. But it has been sufficiently esta
blished by now that feeble-mindedness forms a very small proportion of delinquen
cies and in fact crimes are mostly committed by persons of considerable intellig
ence and sharp outlook.
Psychopaths contend that offenders lend into criminality on account of functiona
l deviations and mental conflicts. Sigmond Freud explained mental conflicts in t
he personality of criminals in terms of :
(i) id;
(ii) ego; and
(iii) super ego.
He asserted that Id generates basic biological and physiological urges and impulse
s in a person. Id is the source of basic biological drives in a human being and is
present at the time of birth and also operates in the unconscious state. Throug
hout life the id constantly seeks expression of a social drive. The viewpoint that
we are all potential criminals is not peculiar to psychoanalytic approach alone
but has been expressed by many other philosophers and writers.
While ego refers to the conscious personality, an attitude which grows out of cont
act with the material and social world, of which the individual is aware. That i
s to say, although the desire for sex pleasure and hunger are basic urges of a p
erson yet he is all the time conscious that only the righteous means urges of a
person yet he is all the time conscious that only the righteous means to fulfil
these desires protect his personality and any deviation from the normal course s
hall cast aspersions on his personality.
Super ego according to him is the force of self-criticism and control inherent in
every person. Thus there is a constant conflict between Id , ego and Super-ego . He ther
efore, contends that crime is the substitute of symbolic behaviour of a person.
According to Freud, the ego does not exist at birth, but it is something the indiv
idual learns. Gradually ego develops and starts controlling the temper i.e., id . The
super-ego is largely part of the unconscious personality. It is the conscience wh
ich exists in the unconscious areas of mind. The super-ego thus characterizes th
e fully socialized and conforming member of society. It is the impact of moral a
nd ethical attitudes of parents with whom the child has his or her earliest cont
acts and relationships which helps in formation of the super-ego .
Thus, it would be seen that id demands pleasure, while the super-ego demands control
and repression and both push ego towards its own. As a result of this, there is
a conflict which is difficult to resolve. Where the super-ego in a child is not w
ell developed, he is likely to be drawn towards delinquency. Freud postulated th
at the failure to develop super-ego was generally the result of parents being unlo
ving, harsh or absent during the child s upbringing. It is for this reason that so
cializing processes had failed to work on those children whose latent delinquenc
y had become dominant; the children were, therefore, dis-social, if not anti-soc
ial.
Psychologists also recognise that other factors such as relationships with perso
ns outside the family and general social environment can also affect the formati
on of super-ego . If super-ego is over-developed, it may lead to guilt feeling.
The adherents of the approach appear to hold the view that no other approach is
capable of disclosing the whole truth about the criminal. The obvious merit of t
he psychoanalytical approach is that social factors are also accommodated in the
analysis of the ultimate personality of the offender by taking into account the
interaction of ego and super ego .
The difficulty in the application of psychoanalytical approach in cases of indiv
idual criminal behaviour is the fact that it is quite difficult to examine the a
ctual mental state of a person with the tools available to psychoanalytical scie
nce at present. To investigate the measure emotion is an extremely complex job.

The individualistic approaches have lost mush of the credibility with the advent
of more sophisticated environmental theories. Their main weakness lies in the f
act that they fail to see that crime represents a socio-cultural phenomenon whic
h is not associated with the physical or mental equipment of an individual as su
ch.

Conflict Theory of Crime

The popular view, of the definition and concept of crime is that (1) the law rep
resents the values of society; (2) if it does not represent the value of everyon
e, then it at least expresses the best common denominator of society and operate
s through a value-neutral governmental structure, which is ultimately controlled
by the choice of the people; and (3) in the long run the law serves the best in
terest of society. A contrary view has been taken by the modern conflict crimino
logists holding that the apparent consensus may be deceptive and a deeper analys
is would lead to the conflicting forces operating in the formulation of criminal
conduct and administration of criminal justice.
1. Sellin s Culture Conflict Theory:- Sellin asserted that culture conflict emnate
s from conflict of conduct norms, where each separate culture sets out its own n
orms i.e. rules of behaviour to be instilled into its members. In a situation li
ke this, law would evidently reflect the values of the dominant class and not of
the society as a whole; the phenomenon thereby often bringing the members of th
e non-dominant group in collision with the legal norms.
Conflict between the norms of divergent cultural codes may arise in the followin
g situations:
(i) When these codes class on the border of contiguous culture areas;
(ii) When, as may be the case with legal norms, the law of one cultural group is
extended to cover the territory of another; or

(iii) When members of one cultural group migrate to another.

2. Vold s Group Conflict Theory.- Vold propounded his theory based on conflict amo
ng various interest groups; emergence of new groups making it a continuous proce
ss. He argued that people are naturally group oriented and those who have same i
nterests come together to form a group in order to carry forward these interests
. The central theme of Vold s theory is that different groups have different and o
ften incompatible interests which gives rise to conflicts. Where groups have sim
ilar strength, then they often resolve their conflict by compromise thus lending
stability to society. But, if the groups are of differing strength, the powerfu
l one dominates which creates frustration and feeling of discontent among the we
aker group which eventually leads to crimes. Thus, crime according to Vold is no
t the result of abnormality, but it is rather a natural response to an attack on
the way of life of the deprived or weaker group.
3. Quinney s Theory of Social Reality of Crime.- Quineey focused on the conflicts
of groups in the context of the various institutions, and public. The diverse gr
oups, according to Quineey, were linked to the major institutional concerns but
the interest structure was characterized by the unequal distribution of power. H
e rejected the pluralist notion that law represents the compromising of diverse
interests; rather law supports some interests at the expense of others.
Quineey laid down six propositions regarding crime and operation of criminal law
, the propositions by no means original but based on earlier theories. Some of t
he aspects in the propositions may be elaborated as follows:
(i) Law in operation is an aspect of politics. Thus crime not a matter of indivi
dual pathology, but is a judgment made by some about the actions and characterist
ics of others .
(ii) In the creation and interpretation of law, the values of some necessarily t
aken into account may negate the values held by other. The relative power and in
fluence of the segments to which individuals may belong would determine the situ
ation.
(iii) The politics of reality is that people grant those in power the authority
to carry out the actions that best promote the interests of the authorities.
4. Turk s Theory of Criminalisation.- The main thrust of this theory is that cultu
ral differences alone do not cause social conflicts, the crucial factor is the d
ifference between the perspectives of authorities and subjects which are bound t
o be at variance and may clash overtly. In his analysis Turk uses the factor of
sophistication by which is meant knowledge of patterns in behaviour of other whic
h is used in attempts to manipulate them .
5. Chambliss and Seidman s Analysis of Criminal Justice.- some conflict criminolog
ists have studied the working of criminal justice system and one such study made
by Chambliss and Seidman is the most exhaustive.
They did not find the consensus theory operating in the criminal justice system.
According to them, every detailed study of the emergence of legal norms has cons
istently shown the immense importance of interest-group activity, not the public
interest , as the critical variable in determining the content of the legislation.
Like other conflict criminologists, they also maintain that higher a group s poli
tical and economic position, the greater is the probability that its views will
be reflected in the laws . The personal values of the judges, as reflected in deci
ding trouble cases , are primarily oriented to the wealthy than the poor. This bias
on the part of the appellant judges can be appreciated keeping in view their pr
ivileged social and economic background. Thus public interest in criminal justic
e is represented only to the extent that it coincides with the interest of the e
xisting power groups.
A number of studies have been made to test the differential behaviour of criminal
law ; to examine whether the system operates in favour of wealthy and powerful pe
rsons. Sutherland s theory of Differential Association as an explanation of crimecausation seems inevitable as it extends positive support to the impact of psych
ological traits on incidence of crime. Considering the structural aspect of huma
n association, Sutherland suggested that social organization consists of three m
ain groups, viz., one supporting the criminal activities, the other remaining ne
utral to criminal circumstances third acting anti-criminal. He further observed

that the differential association in human organization is a logical consequence

of the phenomenon.
It is often argued that Sutherland s theory of differential association as an expl
anation of crime-causation has only a theoretical significance because it lacks
reality. Alternatively, the conflict theory of crime which considers crime as a
minority group behaviour places reliance on psychological trends of human behavi
our in relation to crime.
It must be stated that conflicts generally arise from misunderstanding, lack of
understanding, clash of interests, gulf between the views of beliefs of persons
or parties, suspicion, lack of justice, fair play or honesty, intolerance and vi
olence and lack of rapport, love, and cooperation etc. Once the conflicts arise
and not quickly resolved, the situation leads to confrontation, social instabili
ty, disaffection and lawlessness which finally culminates into violence and crim
inality. It is, therefore, in the interest of the society that the cause of tens
ion and conflict be eliminated and if they do arise, they must be resolved at th
e earliest. This is perhaps the best way to mitigate crimes.

Sociological (Environmental) Approach

Sociological approach seeks to explain the phenomenon of criminal behaviour with
reference to factors outside the personality of the delinquent. The subject-mat
ter for the analysis of criminal behaviour extends from the individual delinquen
t to the community, social institutions and group relationships which shape both
criminal and non-criminal behaviour. In this approach criminal behaviour is loo
ked upon as resulting from social interactions.
In this approach the impact of various social and environmental conditions withi
n which crimes generate. American criminologists preferred to approach the probl
em of crime causation objectively. They attributed criminality to social conditi
ons of the criminal.
The sociological theory of crime asserts that there are persons who do not confo
rm to the established norms and traditions prescribed by law. These persons do n
ot adjust themselves within the framework of normal standards of society and are
more or less indifferent to societal norms.
Tarde provided the starting point of the explanation of crime in terms of social
factors. He is considered as father of social psychology. He criticized and eve
n ridiculed the theories of his contemporary, Lombroso. He compared the detectio
n of criminality on the basis of physical traits by Lombroso with the detection
of divinity by Tibetan priests in a newborn baby on the basis of appearance whil
e choosing the future great Lama. Tarde did not think that even psychological cr
iminal were unique compared to non-criminals. According to him criminal behaviou
r is the result of a learning process. A person learns criminal behaviour just l
ike any other trade which he picks up in his childhood. Tarde s theory was the pre
cursor of the modern ecological and differential association theories.
Garofalo was perhaps the first legalist to attempt a sociological definition of
crime. He designated all those acts as crime which no civilized society can refu
se to recognize as criminal redressible by punishment. He observed that crime is

an immoral and harmful act which is regarded as criminal by public opinion becaus
e it is an injury to so much of the moral sense as is represented by one or the
other of the elementary altruistic sentiments of probity and pity.
Sociological view point about the concept of crime is more realistic than its le
gal definition. It is true that with the repeal of law relating to theft, steali
ng shall no longer remain a crime, nevertheless it would still entail public ind
ignation. Thus although the name of the behaviour would be changed yet the behavi
our and social reaction to it would still remain the same, because the social in
terests damaged by the behaviour would still remain unchanged . Sociologists asser
t that every crime involves three essential elements, namely,
(i) Values that are appreciated by the law-makers who are politically dominant;
(ii) Conflict of interests in society due to environmental variations;
(iii) Use of force and coercive measures by the offenders.
Sociologists contend that like any other social behaviour the criminal behaviour
also results from certain environmental conditions. Therefore, the variations i
n crime-rate are due to variations in social organization under different system
s.
_____________________________________________
Social Disorganization Theory
This theory pre-supposes that criminals are a product of society. Social change
is inevitable in a dynamic society and though not bad in itself, it results some
times in disharmony, conflict and cultural dichotomy. This is specially true whe
n the social change happens to be of a fast pace. This kind of unnatural pace ob
viously is inevitable to lead to disorderly social change. The impact of sociolo
gical factors is so great on persons that they either shun criminality or embrac
e it, depending on their environment and immediate social conditions. Social cha
nge may in such a situation, produce what is called social disorganization .
The term social disorganization was used to describe the disruptive impact of li
fe in a strange new environment. It was defined as the decrease of the influence
of existing rules of behaviour on individual members of the group. As Wirth has
noted referring to a community as disorganized implies some criteria by which an
organized society may be identified. Personal disorganization and social disorga
nization are two distinct phenomena. According to Thomas, social organization is
not co-extensive with individual morality nor does social disorganization corre
spond to individual demoralization.
Social disorganization has been defined as a decrease of the influence of exitin
g social rules upon individual members of the group. This phenomenon is differen
t from the violation of social rules by individuals, because that is something n
ormally expected in even relatively stable societies where not much damage is po
ssible due to effective social sanctions, including criminal law. Social disorga
nization may be due to cultural conflicts between different values of different
sections of society.
A general flow of showing the development to a stage of social disorganization:
Industrialization, urbanization leads to migration to cities ? Leads to change i
n life style ? Lessening of family control & social sanctions ? Tensions for wan
t of food, cloth, housing, medical, educational facilities lack of employment ?
Migrators are stronger ? Less fear of detection ? Increase in Crime.
W.I. Thomas said that social disorganization occurs due to rapid change in techn
ologies due to:
(1) Sudden booms and depression;
(2) Crises & natural disasters.
This theory focus on Five conditions in environment
(i) Deteriorated neighborhood;
(ii) Inadequate social control;
(iii) Conflicting social values;
(iv) Inadequate supply of necessities in life; and
(v) Breakdown of social institution like family.
Thomas isolated several possibilities in looking at society and community, or a
group:
1. Social disorganization can exist without persona disorganization. The Creative

man is one who appears during a period of disruption and realizes his interest b
y violating traditional rules and incorporating into his own life plan elements
of schemes which are competing with traditional ones.
2. Personal disorganization can exist without social disorganization. Personal d
emoralization can occur in the happy village. An individual may fail to realize
his life goals precisely because of his conformity and lack of flexibility. This
personality type was labeled the philistine .
3. Personal disorganization may result from social disorganization. This is the
response of behaviour personality.
Disorganization, according to Thomas, can occur as a result of excessive rapid c
hange, like an increase in the volume and density of population. It might also b
e caused by its opposite, sudden decline in population, or rapid changes in tech
nology or material culture might generate a temporary state of disorganization.
Sudden booms, depressions, crisis, and natural disasters may cause a state of so
cial disorganization. It may result due to cultural conflict between different v
alues of different sections of society. The difference may be between old and ne
w values local and imported values and traditional values imposed on a community
by the law or administrative organs. In this context two studies made in the Th
omas relation to the Polish peasants settled in the U.S.A. and the Eskimos are r
eproduced as illustrations to demonstrate a vast difference in the old and new v
alue system among the most disorganized group of Polish Peasant settlers in the
US. The members of the group no longer had the urge to continue to cherish their
status on the basis of taste for luxurious things like fashionable clothes and
liquor which they were not willing to share with the other members of the group.
Under the influence of new environment the we-attitudes based on peasant family v
alues changed into highly hedonistic individualistic attitude.
The phenomenon of social disorganization was conceived of as part of a three-sta
te process-organization, disorganization, and reorganization. The total theory h
eralded the emergence of newer, more complex and more cohensive forms of reorgan
ization.
Normally the process of disorganization and organization may be thought of as in
reciprocal relationship to each other, and so co-operating in a moving equilibr
ium of social order towards an end vaguely or definitely regarded as progressive
. So far as disorganization points to reorganization and makes for more efficien
t adjustment, disorganization must be conceived not as pathological, but as norm
al.
Another corollary of disorganization is the variable of political stability as m
easured by political scientists. Park maintains the political stability is one i
ndex of organization in a community.
The social disorganization may also emerge sometimes due to cultural leg . Cultural
leg can be described as an unequal growth of the various components of culture
in a society resulting in a gap between those components.
_____________________________________________
Theory of Differential Association
Theory of Criminality based on differential association has been presented by Suth
erland. The theory asserts that crime is learnt by association with others. Acco
rding to him, behavioural learning takes place through personal contacts with ot
her people. This learning, in the context of crime, involves both the techniques
for committing the crimes and the attitudes and rationality or justification fo
r their committal. The theory of differential association centers round the them
e that a person becomes criminal if there is an excess of influence on him favou
rable to the violation of the law as compared with the influences which are unfa
vourable to violation of law.
Sutherland does not think that delinquents are disorganized and hence has no use
for the expression social disorganization . He prefers instead the term differentia
l group organization . In other words, according to Sutherland, there are in fact
two types of organization operating within the community, namely, organization f
or criminal purposes and organizations against criminal activities.
Sutherland maintained that so far as the learning process was concerned, it was
the same for both criminal and non-criminal conducts. Some techniques relating t

o the commission of crimes may be learnt through association with criminals alon
e but others are acquired in the normal course of education since it is not the
difference between criminal and non-criminal techniques as such which matters bu
t the particular use made of them. So what is actually needed to develop crimina
l behaviour in many of them. So what is actually needed to develop criminal beha
viour in many instances is not the crime-committing technique but some sort of r
ationalization to use the techniques for criminal purposes. This rationalizing c
apacity is learnt through association with criminals which gives him definitions
justifying his deviant conduct.
The elements of Sutherland s theory are summarized in nine propositions:
(1) Criminal behaviour is learned.
(2) Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process
of communication.
(3) The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intim
ate personal groups.
(4) The learning of criminal behaviour includes (a) techniques of committing a c
rime, (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalization, and attitu
des.
(5) The specific direction of motives, drives, etc. is learned from definitions
of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable.
(6) A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable t
o violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation law. (This is the
principle of differential association).
(7) Differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and inte
nsity.
(8) The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and
anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that all involved in any o
ther learning.
(9) Although criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it
is not explained by these needs and values, since non-criminal behaviour is an
expression of same needs and values.
The significant feature of Sutherland s theory is his claim that pro-criminal sent
iments are acquired, as are all others, by association with other individuals in
a process of social interaction.
Various criticisms and question have been directed to this theory. Firstly, it h
as been said that no all those persons who come in contract with criminals becom
e criminal themselves. Quite rightly, Sutherland found the answer in the counter
acting influence of contact with anti-criminal groups. In other words, the defin
itions provided by the contract with anti-criminal groups happen to be more pers
uasive in their case than the ones provided by the contact with criminals. Anoth
er connected question posed is that once initiated, why does not criminal behavi
our increase indefinitely until everyone is a criminal? Sutherland answered it o
n the basis of his concept of differential group organization. The measures take
n by the anti-criminal group organization, as a result of the threat of crime po
sed by the opposite group, are effective enough to curb the delinquent tendencie
s.
Another criticism has been that Sutherland meant contract when he used the term ass
ociation and thereby implied physical proximity with the criminal. According to h
im most individuals are believed to identify themselves with both criminal and n
on-criminal persons in the course of their lives. Hey may have first-hand experi
ence in delinquency groups. They may identify themselves with criminal roles pre
sented in fiction, movies, television, or the press. They may react against any
criminal group.
Principal criticism against the theory is that it does not adequately take into
account the personality traits , personality factors or psychological variables in crim
inal behaviour. Sutherland took this kind of criticism seriously, and in an earl
y period he stated that this theory probably would have to be revised to take ac
count of personality traits.
_____________________________________________
Anomie

Anomie is a vital term vaguely defined and generously applied. The literal meani
ng of the word anomie is normlessness. Durkheim formulated the concept and used it
in particular to explain the behaviour which he referred as anomie suicide. Hum
an beings have unlimited desires, the only control to these being provided by so
ciety and public opinion which lose much of their efficacy in time of economic c
hanges and moral stresses and strains. A high rate of both suicide and homicide
is to be found in an anomie-ridden society.
Robert K. Merton, the other sociologist who based his theory on anomie used the co
ncept a bit differently that the needs and desires which went beyond that could
be achieved through socially approved channels in societies which profess to be
of egalitarian character capable of giving equal opportunities to all.
It is paradoxical, though true, that sometimes the very norms which are laid dow
n by society for achieving conforming behaviour tend to produce just the opposit
e result in the form of criminal behaviour. According to Merton s theory of anomie
, delinquency ( and other forms of deviance) is a response to the unavailability
of conventional or socially approved routes to success, and is characteristic o
f lower-class persons since the social structure strains the cultural values, ma
king action in accord with them readily possible for those occupying certain sta
tus within the society and difficult or impossible for others. The term anomie w
as used by Merton for a condition in a social system when cultural regulation of
behaviour is weakened. IN other words, what is encouraged in society is success a
nd so goals are more important than the means to achieve those goals. Merton giv
es the example of sports and games, the way they are sometimes played in the USA
. Winning the match is more important than the spirit of the game.
Messer Rosenfelt said that every person in USA has a goal to achieve and means t
o achieve it. There are two perception to achieve a goal. Firstly, It is playing
the game that matters not the winning and Secondly It is winning that matters not
the game . People who adopt the goals of the society but lack the means to achieve
that seeks alternatives such as crime. He points out how competition for succes
s create conflict & crime. He suggest that it is social conditions & not persona
lity can account for crime. Material goals are the goals for the day.
His theory was criticized on :
(i) Goals & Means: This is not a universally acceptable factor.
(ii) Choice of Crime: Why is it when some persons have some goal. Same goals can
not be achieved it then tend to adapt different means.
(iii) Dwindling with age: Why most young criminals dissent from crime when they
grown in age.
The position obtained in contemporary Indian society does not appear to be an ab
solute misfit in the scale of anomie . The scale comprises five items related to an
individual s perception of his social environment and his perception of his own p
lace within that environment. They are as follows:
1. The perception that community leaders are indifferent to one s needs.
2. The perception that little can be accomplished in society which is seen as ba
sically unpredictable and lacking order.
3. The perception that life s goal are receding rather than being realized.
4. A sense of futility.
5. The convention that one cannot count on personal associates for social psycho
logical support.
An analysis of the forgoing socio-cultural and economic explanation of crime sug
gests that no single theory can offer an adequate explanation for crime causatio
n. It , therefore, follows that delinquent behaviour is an outcome of the combin
ation of a variety of factors which create situation conductive to criminality.
With the widening of social interaction due to the impact of industrialization,
urbanization, etc there is need for community control.
_____________________________________________

Economic Approach
In the words of Carl Marx economic conditions determine the general character of
the social, political and spiritual processes of life and with the change of ec
onomic foundations, the entire superstructure is also rapidly transformed. Legal
philosophers of all ages have accepted that economic conditions have a direct b
earing on crime. Economic structure is one of the important causes of criminalit
y. Poverty gives rise to hunger, misfortune, diseases and anger, which destroys
the personality of an individual and makes him irresponsible to do undesirable a
cts. Under the circumstances, he is forced to lend himself into criminality. The
economic factor has a close bearing on criminality and crime-rate rises when po
verty increases in times of economic depression.
Marxists Theory:
Marxists have propagated a view that crimes emerge solely out of capitalist domi
nation of society. Under such society the upper class can exploit the weak, put
them in physical danger, and transgress their human rights either with impunity
or with only lighter punishment. The Marxists believe that unfair division of la
bour and capital would eventually lead to a conflict between rich and the poor a
nd finally to the overthrow of capitalist ideals. In result, communism would rep
lace capitalism. Criminal law in a capitalist regime is an instrument of the Sta
te and ruling class to perpetuate the capitalist social economic order and it is
meant for the protection of their interest. Under these circumstances, the poor
er sections of society remain oppressed through the coercion of legal system and
their discontentment generates crimes. It is not only with the collapse of capi
talist society that the problem of criminality can be solved.
The Marxists, however, differ in their view regarding the effect of economic con
ditions on criminality. In their opinion the two vary in inverse proportion. Thi
s view has, however, been refuted on the ground that despite constant economic p
rogress throughtout the world, the crimes are constantly recording an upwards tr
end. The real cause for rise in crime-rate with economic prosperity is perhaps t
he capacity of people to spend more in manipulating escape from arrest and detec
tion. A large number of crimes go undetected and unreported for want of lack of
initiative on the part of victim in getting the offender prosecuted or due to th
e manipulative tactics of the criminal. Present conditions have created a peculi
ar situation wherein crimes are rampant whether the economic conditions are favo
urable or unfavourable.
Bongers Theory of Economic Structure and Crime:
The most notable and stimulating contribution to criminology in understanding th
e relation of crime and economic structure has been made by Bonger who sought to
explain the phenomenon of crime on the basis of the Marxist approach. He emphas
ized the importance of environmental factors not only in the case of criminals b
ut also in great men. Bonger insisted that the criminal was a product of the cap
italistic system which, instead of promoting altruistic tendencies among members

of the society, created selfish tendencies. The system based on capitalistic exc
hange is motivated by profit element. In such a system each member tries to get t
he maximum from others in return of the minimum from himself. This attitude of t
he capitalist, according to Bonger, affects the attitudes of the proletariat as
well.
Bonger defined crime in the formal sense as, A crime is an act committed within a
group of persons who form a social unit, and whose author is punished by the gr
oup as such, or by organs designed for this purpose, and this by a penalty whose
nature is considered more severe than that of more disapprobation.
Bonger identifies many evils in the capitalist system which are conducive to the
spread of criminal behaviour i.e. child labour, long hours of work by workers,
illiteracy.
According to Bonger motives for economic crimes can be subdivided into three: th
ey could be (i) crime of poverty, (ii) crimes of cupidity and (iii) professional
crimes. All three he attributed to social arrangements which encouraged of extr
emes poverty and wealth
He believed that poverty was a major cause of such crimes as theft. Cupidity he
placed next in importance. Theft from this motive tended to increase rather dimi
nish in times of prosperity. This was because at such times people s want increase
d whilst many of them were unable to satisfy them in a lawful manner. The differ
ence between rich and poor had been greatly increased by capitalism and the wide
r the difference the more cupidity was stimulated.
Professional criminals were not responsible for a high proportion of theft as su
ch but the more serious offences such as burglary and robbery were almost exclus
ively theirs, professional crime in the training of children to steal by their p
arents, who saw it merely as work and had no qualms of conscience about it.
While establishing a co-relationship between economic conditions and crime, Bong
er drew the following conclusions:
(1) He tried to establish a co-relationship between poverty and delinquency.
(2) He further observed that the influence of economic conditions on delinquency
is essentially due to the capitalistic economy which breeds disparity and leads
to unequal distribution of wealth.
(3) In an economic system based on capitalism, economic cycle of inflation and d
eflation are frequent. Inflation gives rise to bankruptcy and insolvency with th
e result the persons affected thereby are forced to lead an anti-social life and
some of them may even resort to criminality.
(4) Another peculiar feature of capitalistic economy is the competitive tendency
among entrepreneurs. When efforts fails to meet the competition, unlawful devic
es such as violation of laws are committed by the manufactures. This gives rise
to increase in crime-rate.
(5) There is yet another danger of the capitalistic economy which contributes to
enormous increase in crimes. The employment of children and women furnishes soo
thing ground for criminality despite effective legislative restriction banning t
heir improper utilization in industrial establishments. Employment of children a
s labour is a potential cause for crimes because a child who earns spend his mon
ey on undesirable items, which ultimately drag him into the criminal world.
The theory propounded by Bonger no doubt indicates one very important basis of t
he cause of criminality. He, however, ignores the tangle of interrelationships a
mong social, cultural, economic, political, religious and other sets of factors.
According to his theory, the phenomenon of crime should have come to an end, or
at least controlled to a very great extent in socialist countries like the USSR
, which is not at all the factual position.
He said that the mode of production based on private property and individual pro
fit was essentially inimical to the development of social instincts and of links
of reciprocity. Under it the economic mechanism itself made man more egoistic a
nd hence more capable of crime . Once the producer found himself with a surplus abo
ve subsistence level which he could exchange with his neighbour instead of shari
ng with them freely, each tried to get as much profit for himself as possible and
consequently to make the other lose, . From this sprang lying and fraud. The next
setup was the development of forced services, ranging from slavery to wage labo

ur, leading masters to see their servants as mere instruments, servants to resor
t to dissimulation in self-defence. From this also came envy and hatred on the p
art of the poor, pride and domination on that of the rich. To Bonger the conclus
ion was inescapable that the egoistic tendencies of the capitalist system inhibi
ted the development of man s social instinct.
The proponents of the Marxist view, however, hold that crime cannot be eliminate
d in socialist societies within a short period after a new economic order has be
en introduced. It will need a long time for the remnants of criminality to disappe
ar altogether, which can happen only after the remnants of the bourgeois way of t
hinking are eventually eliminated .
There is no doubt, however, that poverty does play an important role in delinque
ncy and the capitalistic system may also contributive to poverty in certain sect
ions of the society and give values which determine success in life purely in te
rms of money.
Criminal statistics showing high representation of lower groups may not necessar
ily give the exact relative positions of deviants from different socio-economic
strata because of differential police action in different situations. The change
s of a crime committed by someone from the upper strata going unreported to the
police or lack of action by the establishment are higher than in case of persons
from lower economic strata.
Inadequate housing is one of the most serious problems in such delinquent areas
which creates tension between members of the family living in a cramped atmosphe
re.
In spite of Bonger s generalization regarding the effect of economic conditions on
crime many critics have opposed his views on different grounds. Prof. Cohen cri
ticized Bonger s economic theory of criminality on the following grounds:
(1) Research to establish a relationship between their respective occupations an
d frequency of committing crime has shown that poverty has no correlation with t
he frequency of convictions. Cohen observed that honesty is not the monopoly of
only the rich persons, many people lead an honest and upright life despite their
poor financial conditions.
(2) Tarde, subscribes that a large number of crimes occur not due to commercial
or industrial progress but because of inequitable distribution of wealth and man s
lust for luxurious life. The acquisitive tendency in man often tempts him to co
mmit illegal acts.
(3) Bonger s assertion that poverty is an essential condition of crime because a p
erson is always prepared to do anything to get relief from his miserable economi
c condition, seems untenable in the light of the fact that even the wealthiest p
ersons who are usually big industrialists, businessmen, financiers or monopolist
s often resort to dishonest means such as black-marketing, tax-evasion, etc., de
spite their huge earnings. This obviously does not support Bonger s theory of crim
inality founded on poverty-delinquency relationship.
(4) Bonger s view that capitalistic trend of society is responsible for criminalit
y is also not wholly true. The socialistic policies launched with a view to elim
inating excessive profits and other evils of capitalistic economy have equally f
ailed to yield favourable results.
From the foregoing analysis, it may be inferred that crimes are committed by per
sons because of their subjective tendency therefore, economic changes through St
ate control and nationalization cannot inject a change in this human tendency. I
t is not the poverty alone that generates crime but it is the poverty in relatio
n to other factors such as acquisitive tendency in man and his craze for gaining
more and more wealth that tends to make him a criminal.

Putative Approach
Punishment is a means of social control. H.L.A. Hart had defined punishment in ter
ms of five elements:
(i) It must involve pain or other consequence normally considered unpleasant.
(ii) It must be for an offence against legal rules.
(iii) It must be an actual or supposed offender for his offence.
(iv) It must be intentionally administered by human being other than the offende
r.
(v) It must be imposed and administered by an authority constituted by a legal s
ystem against which the offence is committed.
The three components must be present if punishment is to act as reasonable means
of checking crime. First speedy and inescapable detection and inescapable detecti
on and prosecution must convince the offender that crime does not pay. Second, a
fter Punishment, the offender must have a fair chance of a fresh start. And Third,
the State which claims the right of punishment must uphold superior values which
offender can reasonably be expected to acknowledge.
The concept of punishment is that of inflicting some sort of pain on the offende
r for his violation of law.
Prof. Jerom Hall has set out a detailed description of punishment as, First punis
hment is a privation, Second, it is coercive, Third, it is inflicted in the name
of State, it is authorized . Fourth, punishment presupposes rules, their violation
, and a more or less formal determination of that, expressed in a judgment. Fift
h, it is inflicted upon an offender who has committed a harm, and this presuppos
es a set of values by reference to which both the harm and the punishment are et
hically significant. Sixth, the extent or type of harm and aggravated or mitigat
ed by reference to the personality of the offender, his motives and temptation.
Criminal may be described as a monster or be pictured as a hunted animal or as t
he helpless victim of brutality. As a result of the changing attitudes, three ty
pes of reactions can be discerned in various societies. The first is the traditi
onal reaction, of a universal nature, which can be termed as the punitive approa
ch. It regards the criminal as a basically bad and dangerous sort of person and
the object under this approach is to inflict punishment on the offender in order
to protect society from his onslaughts. The second approach, of relatively rece
nt origin, considers the criminal as a victim of circumstances and a product of
various factors within the criminal and society. Finally, there is the preventiv
e approach which instead of focusing attention on particular offenders, seek to
eliminate those conditions which are responsible for crime causation. It should,
however, be understood that the three approaches are not mutually exclusive. No
t only do they overlap with each other, but sometimes they may coexist as parts
of the overall system in a society.
The punitive approach has its focus of attention on the damage caused to the vic
tim and danger posed to society. The criminal is treated as something incapable
of being reformed.
Crassey on the basis of his scapegoat hypothesis ; the criminal is made a scapegoat
to give relief or gratification to the members of the community. This relief or
gratification is due to their sense of freedom from their own guilt feeling abo
ut the crime, as a result of punishment given to the offender. This is based on
the theory that all human beings have criminal propensities though in most cases
they may not be reflected in actual behaviour. According to another view, the h
ostile reaction to the criminal works as a bond between non-criminal members of
the community. The bond represents the reassertion of moral principles common to

the members of the society and serves as a reminder of taboos to all of them.
It is only the extreme and pure retributionists who perceive punishment as inher
ently good, i.e. per se. Justification for punishment is also argued on the basi
s of social contract which creates a give and take situation. Individual rights and
benefits, it is only reasonable and inevitable that individuals curtail their fr
eedom vis--vis others and in the event of their failure to do so, punishment must
be inflicted on them.
The rationalization of punishment may be divided into two classes, based on retr
ibutive and utilitarian theories. Retributionists assert that the infliction of
punishment is justified in itself since offenders should be given their just des
erts, the utilitarians regard punishment as an evil which should be used only if
it serves some purpose like deterrence from commission of crime.
Retribution Theory:
Retribution has been regarded as a very important feature in the punitive scheme
. According to Hegel, punishment annuls the crime. It aims at restoring the social
balance disturbed by the offender. The offender should receive as much pain and
suffering as inflicted by him on his victim to assuage the angry sentiments of
the victim and the community. Various theories have sought to justify the retrib
utive aspect of punishment in theological, aesthetic and expiatory grounds. Reta
liation fulfils a religious mission of punishing the offender, it re-establishes
the social harmony affected by the offence and the offender s guilt is washed awa
y through suffering.
The most forceful presentation of the case for retribution is the justification
for punishment by Kant. He expressed his opposition to the utilitarian concepts.
The Kantian objection is that a mere use of a person for some social purpose vi
olates his moral autonomy and he, therefore, finds the justification of punishme
nt in retribution alone.
Some other supporting arguments for retribution may be summarized as follows:
(i) Retribution connects the offender to correct values; it sends the message to
the wrongdoer that what he did was wrong. Retribution should, therefore, not be
confused with revenge.
(ii) It would be unfair to victims if there is no retribution against the wrongd
oers.
(iii) It would also be unfair to the law-abiding citizens if the offenders get u
ndeserved benefit through their criminal acts.
These postulates of retributivism have been criticized. It has been asked, for i
nstance, that if individuals have no moral right to exact retribution, how can a
group of individuals in the society acquire such a moral right. There is some m
erit, at least theoretical, in the expiation argument that the offender gets an
opportunity of making a new start after the atonement . The practical sang is that
it becomes extremely difficult for a person to start with a clean slate after be
ing convicted of an offence. The chances of his being admitted to society as a n
ormal human being are certainly affected after undergoing punishment.
The theories of punishment based on retribution have also been sought to be defe
nded on the ground that punishment reflects denunciation of the criminal and his
act by the society. Such an approach tends to invert the priorities since punis
hment should not be for the sake of denunciation alone but a deserved punishment
does serve as a denunciation. According to Hart, we do not live in society in o
rder to condemn though we may condemn in order to live. It follows, therefore, t
hat the concept of denunciation belongs to the utilitarian rather than to the re
tributive theories.
It appears from the above discussion that the retribution theory in its purest f
orm, which provides that the penal system should be designed to ensure that offe
nders atone by suffering for their offences and their sufferings should be of th
e same magnitude as that of their victims, has lost much of its ground in the co
ntext of modern and more enlightened views on the functional value of penal law.
In modern society the idea of revenge in the punishment is rejected and the mode
rn concept is hate the sin not the sinner. There are some other ways to achieve
the social solidarity and the need is to develop such measures where a person wi
ll not commit a crime. The various studies have established that the social stru

cture and the functioning of the social system is more responsible for a crime t
han an individual. Modern criminology states that it is important to protect the
interest. A criminal after his release should not become an enemy of society. B
ut still there are certain expectations where the retributive punishment can be
considered necessary.
Utilitarian Theory:
The utilitarian view punishment as a means to achieve certain ends with the aid
of criminal law. Punishment must serve as an instrument for reducing crime eithe
r by deterring the offender and others from doing similar acts in future or it s
hould prevent the commission of offences by incapacitating the offenders. Reform
ation of the offenders through punishment is also sought to be achieved, though
the efficacy of the punitive approach in the reformation of the offender is extr
emely doubtful.
Utilitarians accept punishment only for achieving good consequences but there may
be disagreement as to the nature of the good consequences . Three issues to be cons
idered in a given situation are as to whether the punishment would be:
(i) Useless;
(ii) Needless; and
(iii) Involving more evil than what it purports to solve.
Deterrent Theory:
One of the Utilitarian rationalizations which are advanced to justify punitive r
eaction is that punishment acts as a deterrent to the offender punished and also
to others in the community. It has been suggested that the so-called deterrent
approach is a veiled form of the retributive spirit. Deterrence is usually defin
ed as the preventive effect which actual or threatened punishment of offenders h
as upon potential offenders. The deterrence theory finds no justification for ac
tion in a past offence, which has more than a certain evidential importance, and
it depends upon consequences of punishment other than the immediate satisfactio
n given to victims of offences and other. It need not ignore these satisfactions
.
Punishment is justified to control individual crime and to have a deterring effe
ct on other criminals. According to Bentham, general prevention ought to be the
chief end of punishment as it is its real justification.
Bentham thus goes on to suggest that punishment may help in control of crime in
three ways:
1. By making it impossible or difficult for a criminal to commit the offence aga
in, at least in certain ways;
2. By deterring both offenders and others;
3. by providing an opportunity for the reforming of offenders.
Bentham and other supporters of the deterrence theory considerably under-estimat
ed the number of offenders whose punishment is unlikely to have an acceptable de
terrent effect.
Efficacy of the deterrent aspect of punishment can be pointed out with reference
to the Islamic law of crimes as applied in Saudi Arabia, the only country where
the system with all its severity is being applied even now. It is reported that
crimes are almost unknown in Saudi Arabia and it is a common sight in towns tha
t people leave their shops open and unattended while they are away from them for
some time. It may be pointed out, however, that several other factors might be
operating for creating such a situation, like economic security and religious in
junctions. Further, it may be observed that deterrence is not the only purpose o
f criminal law but has to maintain some other values as well.
Reformative/ Rehabilitation Theory:
Modern penology recognizes that punishment is no longer regarded as retributive
or deterrent, but is regarded as reformative or rehabilitative.
Reformation is defined as the effort to restore a man to society as a better and
wiser man and a good citizen. Progressive criminologists across the world will a
gree that the Gandhian diagnosis of offenders as patients and his concept of pri
sons and hospitals-mental and moral- is the key to the pathology of delinquency
and the therapeutic role of punishment . It is, thus, clear that crime is a patholog
ical aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State ha

s to rehabilitate rather than avenge.

Punishment is, therefore, said to be justified because- (1) It provides an oppor
tunity for State to take steps to reform offenders and so control crime. (2) It
is both a deterrent and an effective condemnation, and as such it has reformativ
e consequences. (3) The ultimate aim of the punishment is to resocialise the offen
der to readjust him to society, to rehabilitate him to change him deep inside .
According to reformatists, a criminal is to be studied, like a patient in his en
tire socio-economic milieu, and nor in isolation, to understand causative factor
s leading to criminality and then attempt be made to reform or treat and rehabil
iate the offender.
There are only few aspects of the treatment problem which are to be observed in
practice while employing the reformative techniques to treat the offenders. And
as such there will still be a little element of the retributive and deterrent as
pects of punishment because of the very inevitability of punishment of some sort
after crime. But, others say that in view of the changed penal philosophy, the
bulk of the component of punishment will naturally be reformation and rehabilita
tion with a view to refit the offender as a useful member of society.
Modern society considers various objectives in order to control crime and it con
siders imprisonment a means to attain the twin aims, i.e., reform and treatment
of the criminals so that they will commit no crime after their release. Society
also seeks protection from criminals. And for this purpose prison isolates crimi
nals from the community for a certain time. All these objectives-reformation, re
tribution and deterrence, within the prison result in cross conflict.
In James V. Bennet, it was observed that on the one hand, prison are expected to
punish, on the other, they are supposed to reform. They are expected to discipl
ine rigorously at the same time they teach self-reliance. They are built to be o
perated like vast impersonal machines, yet they are expected to fit man to live
normal community lives. They operate, in accordance with a fixed automatic routi
ne, yet they are expected to develop individual idleness despite the fact that t
he one of their primary objective is to teach men how to earn an honest living.
To some, prisons are nothing but country clubs, catering to the whims and fancie
s of the inmates. To others, the prison atmosphere seems charged only with bitte
rness, rancor and an all pervading sense of defeat.
Conflict between reformative, deterrent and retributive measures have been a con
troversial issue from the point of correctional administration as well as treatm
ent of the offenders. There is a definite need to protect society by segregating
those who are so dangerous as to require a close custody, control and supervisi
on.
Preventive Theory:
This has also been called Theory of disablement as it aims at preventing the crime
by disabling the criminal. In order to prevent the repetition of crime the offe
nders are punished with death, imprisonment for life or transportation of life.
Preventive philosophy of punishment is based on the proposition not to avenge cri
me but to prevent it . It presupposes that need for punishment of crime arises sim
ply out of social necessities. In punishing the criminal, the community protects
itself against anti-social acts which endanger social order in general or perso
n or property of its members.
This theory has been criticized by many writers on the ground that prevention of
crime can also be done by reforming the behaviour of criminals.
It is clear that neither theory can be adopted as sole standard of punishment fo
r perfect penal code. The correct view, therefore, seems to be that the perfect
system of criminal justice is the result of a compromise between the principles
of all the theories.
Protection of society must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposin
g appropriate punishment. A sentence or its system which does not work properly
can undermine respect of law. In order to deter other potential criminals and to
meet social necessity, the imposition of appropriate punishment is desirable. A
lthough it is not possible to formulate any ready-made formula in this respect b
ut object should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and victim of t

he crime and society have satisfaction that justice has been done to them. Aggra
vating factors cannot be ignored and mitigating circumstances should get due wei
ghtage.

White Collar Crimes

Certain professions offer lucrative opportunities for criminal acts and unethica
l practices which hardly attract public attention. They carry on their illegal a
ctivities with impunity without the fear or loss of prestige or status. The crim
es of this nature are called white-collar crimes and are essentially an outcome of
competitive economy.
The concept of White Collar Crime is usually associated with Sutherland. He poin
ted out that besides the traditional crimes there are certain anti-social activi
ties which the persons of upper strata carry on in course of their occupation or
business. These activities for a long time were accepted as a part of usual bus
iness tactics necessary for a shrewd professional man for his success in profess
ion or business.
Sutherland further pointed out that a white-collar crime is more dangerous to so
ciety than ordinary crimes because the financial loss to society from white-coll
ar crimes is far greater than the financial loss from burglaries, robberies, lar
cenies etc.
These white collar crimes by their very nature are such that the injury or damag
e caused as a result of them is so widely diffused in the large body of society
that their gravity in regard to individual victim is almost negligible. White co
llar crimes are committed by persons of status not for need but for greed.
White collar criminality thrives because of public apathy to it. The reason for
this public insensibility is that firstly such criminals operate within the stri
ct letter of the law and exploit the credibility of their victims; and secondly
the legal battles involved are dragged out for years in the courts, with the res
ult the gravity of the offence is completely lost in the oblivion. That apart, t
he impact of white collare crime is so much diffused in the community that the i
ndividual victims are only marginally affected by it, and, therefore, they conve
niently forget all about it.
There is yet another important point in context of white collar crime. The membe
rs of the community themselves contribute to the commission of various white col
lar crimes willingly or unwillingly. For instance, illegal gratification to publ
ic servants to get the work done quickly such crimes cannot be committed unless
there is a demand for illegal favour from consumers and they are actively involv
ed in the deal.
Sutherland s definition of white collar crime has evoked criticism from certain qu
arters. The lack of definite criteria for determining who are persons of respecta
bility and status has made Sutherland s definition of white collar crime most contr
oversial. It seems likely that what Sutherland s meant by this is absence from con
victions for crimes other than white collar crimes. The element of high social st
atus as used in the definition also leads to confusion. Some critics have suggest
ed that such crimes should have been called as occupational crimes instead of bein
g termed as white collar crime .
Tappan observes that treating persons committing white collar crime as criminals
would mean deviating from legal definition of crime inasmuch as personal value
considerations of the administrator would gain primary in place of precision and
clarity of legal provisions in deciding such cases. Sutherland, however, justif
ies the special procedure of trial for white collar criminals by administrative
agencies on the ground that it would protect the offender from stigma of crimina

l prosecution.
Another criticism is that it includes even those violations of law which are not
committed in course of occupation or profession and these violations do not nec
essarily belong to upper strata of society or the so-called prestigious groups. F
or example, tax evasion is not committed only by person of high status but it ca
n be committed by persons belonging to middle or even lower strata of society.
Of all the factors, the economic and industrial growth through out the world has
perhaps been the most potential cause of increase in white collar crimes in rec
ent years. Law Commission in its report observed that modern scientific and tech
nological developments and monopolistic trends in business have led to enormous
increase in white collar crimes.
The problem of white-collar criminality has its root in competitive business com
munity which tries to oust their rival competitors in order to earn huge profits
. Sometimes such crimes may also be committed merely for the sake of retaining e
xistence in the competitive business.
One more reason for the multiplicity of white collar crime is relatively high so
cio-economic status of white collar criminals. They belong to an influential gro
up which is powerful enough to handle their occupation tactfully and persons aff
ected thereby hardly know that they are being victimized.
The recent development in information technology particularly during the closing
years of the twentieth century, have added new dimensions to white collar crimi
nality. There has been unprecedented growth of a new variety of computer dominat
ed white collar crimes which are commonly called as cyber crimes.
India is equally in the grip of white collar criminality. The Report of Vivin Bo
se Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of Dalmia-Jain group of companies high
lights how these big industries indulge in white collar crimes such as fraud, fa
lsification of accounts, tampering with records for personal gains and tax-evasi
on etc.
The case of M.H. Hoskot V. State of Maharashtra illustrates the attitude of the
lower judiciary towards white-collar criminals. Haskot, a reader in Saurashtra U
niversity, was found guilty of an attempt to concoct degree certificates of the
Karnataka University. The sessions court awarded him a single day s imprisonment.
The court justified the token punishment on the basis of the background of the o
ffender, his not having criminal tendencies as such and the unlikelihood of his
indulging in criminal activities in future. On appeal by the State, the High Cou
rt enhanced the period of imprisonment to three years. While upholding the sente
nce awarded by the High court, the Supreme Court termed the sentence awarded by
the session court as incredibly indiscreet .
The Supreme Court has made its approach of white-collar crimes absolutely clear
in the above observation. It is however, submitted that Hoskot s case was truly sp
eaking not a case of white-collar criminality, according to the meaning given to
the term by Sutherland and others.
Besides prescribing stiffer punishments for white-collar offenders, the Supreme
Court has also held in a number of cases that liberal interpretation must be giv
en to the penal laws dealing with social welfare legislation to see that the leg
islative object is not defeated. In Murlidhar Meghraj Loya V. State of Maharasht
ra, the Court observed that it is trite that the social mission of food laws shou
ld inform the interpretative process so that the legal blow may fall on every ad
ulterator. Any narrow and pedantic literal and lexical construction likely to le
ave loopholes for this dangerous criminal tribe to sneak out of the meshes of th
e law should be discouraged. For the new criminal jurisprudence must depart from
the old canons, which make indulgent presumptions and favoured constructions be
nefiting accused person and defeating criminal statues calculated to protect pub
lic health and the national s wealth.
Again in P.K. Tejani V. M.R. Dange, a case under the Prevention of Food Adultera
tion Act, the Supreme Court said that
it is trite law that in food offences stri
ct liability is the rule not merely under the Indian Act but all the world over.
Section 7 casts an absolute obligation regardless of scienter, bad faith and me
ns rea. It you have sold any article of food contrary to any sub-section of Sect
ion 7, you are guilty. There is no more argument about it.

Some of the remedial measures for combating white collar criminality may be stat
ed as follows:
1. Creating public awareness against these crimes.
2. Special tribunals should be constituted with power to award sentence of impri
sonment.
3. Stringent regulatory laws and drastic punishment for white-collar criminals m
ay help in reducing these crimes.
4. A separate chapter on white-collar crimes and socio-economic crimes should be
incorporated in the IPC by amending the Code so that white-collar criminals who
are convicted by the Court do not escape punishment because of their high socia
l status.
5. White-collar offenders should be dealt with sternly by prescribing stiffer pu
nishments keeping in view the gravity of injury caused to society because of the
se crimes.
6. There is an urgent need for a National Crime Commission which may squarely ta
ckle the problem of crime and criminality in all its facets.
7. Above all, public vigilance seems to be the cornerstone of anti-white collar
crime strategy. Unless white-collar crimes become abhorrent to public mind, it w
ill not be possible to contain this growing menace.

Capital Punishment
Death Sentence has been used as an effective weapon of retributive justice for c
enturies. The fear of being condemned to death is perhaps the greatest deterrent
which keeps an offender away from criminality. The justification advanced is th
at it is lawful to forfeit the life of a person who takes away another s life. Thu
s, the motive for death penalty may indeed include vengeance which is a compensa
tory and reparatory satisfaction for an injured party, group or society.
Penologists in India have reacted to capital punishment differently. Some of the
m have supported the retention of this sentence while others have advocated its
abolition on humanitarian ground. The retentionists support capital on the groun
ds that it has a great deterrent value and commands obedience for law in general
public. The abolitionists, on the other hand, argue that enormous increase in h
omicide crime-rate reflects upon the futility of death sentence.

The Law Commission of India in its 35th Report said on a consideration of the is
sues that capital punishment should be retained in the present state of the coun
try. Supporting the view of the Law Commission, the Supreme Court in Bachan Sing
h V. State of Punjab, observed that notwithstanding the views of the abolitionis
t to the contrary, a very large segment of people still firmly believe in the wo
rth and necessity of capital punishment for the protection of society.
In this case appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife and he underwent
life imprisonment. On being released from jail he came to stay with his cousin
Hukam Singh. This was objected to by Hukam Singh s wife and son and the appellant,
therefore, developed a grievance against the family. While Hukam Singh and his
wife were away in another town the appellant taking advantage of the situation k
illed his son and his two sisters and grievously injured a third one in an unusu
ally brutal manner. He was awarded death sentence. High Court conformed his deat
h sentence.
With regard to the application of Art. 19 of the constitution in cases under sec
tion 302 IPC the Supreme Court observed that section 302 prescribes death or imp
risonment for life as penalty for murder. It cannot reasonably or rationally, be
contended that any of the rights mentioned in Art. 19(1) of the Constitution co
nfer the freedom to commit murder or, for the matter of that, the freedom to com
mit any offence whatsoever. Therefore, penal laws, that is to say, laws which de
fine offences and prescribe punishment for the commission of offences do not att
ract the application of Art.19. In pith and substance, penal laws do not deal wi
th the subject-matter of right enshrined in Art. 19(1). The Supreme Court observ
ed that they are of the opinion that the deprivation of freedom consequent upon
an order of conviction and sentence is not a direct and inevitable consequence o
f the penal law but is merely incidental to the order of conviction and sentence
which may or may not come into play, that is to say, which may or may not be pa
ssed. In view of it, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that Sec. 302 of the P
enal Code does not have to stand the test of Art. 19(1) of the Constitution.
It may be inferred that neither retention nor abolition of death sentence can be
justified in absolute terms. The desirability of this punishment, by and large,
depends on the nature of the crime and the circumstances associated therewith.
The classification of different types of homicides can be made on the basis of s
ocial environment and personality of the offender. Therefore, the efficacy of de
ath penalty in such cases should be judged in the light of the surrounding condi
tions.
The Report of the Convention of International Congress of Criminal Law concluded
that the general consensus was clearly in favour of retention of death penalty
though its use may be restricted to rarest of rare cases . Justice Krishna Iyer jus
tified retention of capital punishment though to be used sparingly. Justice HIda
yatullah observed that the doctrine of rarest of rare case evolved in the Indian j
urisprudence for the use of death penalty is capable of discounting the possible
errors and abuse of this sanction and, therefore, a dispassionate approach to t
his problem in the context of the mounting crime was most necessary.
The Law Commission in its report observed that even after all the arguments in s
upport of abolition of capital punishment are taken into account, there does not
remain a residium of cases where it is absolutely impossible to enlist any symp
athy on the side of the criminal. The Commission further expressed a view that re
tribution involved in capital punishment does not connote the primitive concept o
f eye for an eye but is an expression of public indignation at a shocking crime, w
hich can better be described as reprobation .
The Law Commission strongly feels that capital punishment acts as an effective,
deterrent which is the most important object and even if all objects were to be k
ept aside, this object would be itself furnish a rational basis for its retentio
n. In its concluding remarks, the Commission observed that having regard to the p
eculiar conditions prevalent in India and the paramount need for maintaining law
and order in the country, we cannot risk the experiment of abolition. This is p
erhaps the most appropriate approach to the problem of capital punishment so far
Indian Criminal justice system is concerned.
In the IPC eight provisions provides for death sentence for certain specified of

fences. The Supreme Court noted that IPC contained fifty-one sections which pres
cribe life imprisonment for various offences. The basic difference between Secti
on 302 and the other sections was that whereas under those sections life impriso
nment is the maximum penalty which can be imposed, under Section 302, it is the
minimum sentence which has to be imposed. The Court, however, made it clear that
the ruling in Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab upholding the constitutional vali
dity of death sentence could not govern death penalty prescribed in the IPC.
The members of the judiciary are sharply divided on the crucial issue of life or
death sentence. Those who support abolition argue that death penalty is degradi
ng the contrary to the notion of human dignity; it is irrevocable and an express
ion of retributive justice which has no place in modern penology. The retentioni
sts, on the other hand, justify capital punishment as a social necessity having
a unique deterrent force.
After the Amendment Act 1955, the Judge had the discretion to commute the senten
ce of death to that of life imprisonment but in case he considered the impositio
n of death sentence necessary he had to state the reasons as to why a lesser pen
alty would not serve the ends of justice.
The CrPC also contains a provision regarding death sentence. Section 354(3) of t
he Code provides that while awarding the sentence of death, the Court must recor
d special reasons justifying the sentence and state as to why an alternative sente
nce would not meet the ends of justice in the particular case. Justice Krishna I
yer observed that the special reasons which the section speaks of provides reaso
nableness as envisaged in Article 19 as a relative connotation dependent on a va
riety of variables, cultural, social, economic and otherwise.
The CrPC further requires that the sentence of death imposed by Sessions Judge c
an be executed only after it is confirmed by High Court. That apart, Section 235
(2) of the Code further casts a statutory duty upon the court to hear the accuse
d on the point of sentence. Section 302 casts a heavy duty on the Judge, of choo
sing between death and imprisonment for life for the person found guilty of murd
er, is now expected to be discharged in a highly responsible manner by complying
with the provisions contained in CrPC so that the principle of natural justice
and fair play holds its away in the sphere of sentencing. These provisions also
help the Judge to individualise sentencing justice and make it befitting to the
crime and the criminal.
Besides the statutory provisions, the Constitution of India also empowers the Pr
esident and the Governor of the State to grant pardon to the condemned offender
in appropriate cases.
A perusal of some of the Supreme Court decisions involving death penalty would r
eveal that sudden impulse or provocation uncontrollable hatred arising out of se
x indulgence, family feud or land dispute, infidelity of wife or sentence of dea
th hanging over the head of the accused for a considerable long period of time d
ue to law s delay, have been accepted as extenuating circumstances justifying less
er penalty of life imprisonment instead of death sentence.
Following the ruling laid down in Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court upheld the dea
th sentence of the accused in Machi Singh V. State of Punjab, on the ground that
the murder committed was of exceptionally depraved and heinous in character and
the manner of its execution and its design would put it at the level of extreme
atrocity and cruelty. The accused in the instant case has killed two innocent a
nd helpless women. Their Supreme Court opined that the rarest of rare cases doctri
ne was clearly attracted in this case and that the sentence of death was perfect
ly justified.
While deciding this case the Apex Court realized that the rarest of rare cases doc
trine had caused inner conflict in the minds of the Judges because it was left muc
h to the judicial discretion to decide whether the case fell within the category
of rarest or rare case or not. Hence, the Supreme Court laid down a five-point
formula based on the manner in which the murder was committed and the motive, na
ture and magnitude of the crime and the personality of the victim. The factor wh
ich the Court was expected to take into consideration for this purpose may be br
iefly stated as follows:
1. The manner in which the offence of murder was committed. If it was committed

with extreme brutality such as burning the victim alive or cutting body into pie
ces, it would be a fit case to be considered as rarest of rare case.
2. When the manner reveals depravity and meanness of murdered e.g. crime being c
ommitted for material gain.
3. When the murder is socially abhorrent such as bride burning or killing of Har
ijan.
4. When the magnitude of the offence is enormous as in case of multiple murders.
5. When the victim is an innocent child, a helpless woman, or a reputed figure i
.e. the case of a political murder.
The Court however, cautioned that these guidelines should not be applied too lit
erally. Instead, the Judges should interpret the provisions rationally to ascert
ain whether collective conscience of the community has been shocked and it will e
xpect the Judge to award the death penalty.
The Supreme Court decision in Kishori V. State of Delhi, consequent to the assas
sination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, large scale rioting and arson took place in diff
erent parts of Delhi. The Charges against four accused persons including Kishori
were framed. Having been sentenced to death by the trial court and confirmed by
High Court the appellant filed SLP in the Supreme Court challenging the judgmen
t of the High Court. During the hearing, it was stated that Kishori was allegedl
y involved in several incidents which gave rise to seven cases, four of which en
ded in his acquittal and in three cases, he was sentenced to death. The Supreme
Court observed that the law is well settled by reason of the decision of this Co
urt that capital punishment can be imposed in the rarest of rare cases and if th
ere are aggravating circumstances. Experts in criminology often express a view t
hat where there is mob-action, as in the instant case, there is diminished indiv
idual responsibility unless there are special circumstances indicating that a pa
rticular person had acted with any predetermined motive such as use of weapon no
t normally found.
In the instant case, all the witnesses speak that there was a mob attack resulti
ng in the death of three persons. Though the appellant is stated to be responsib
le for inflicting certain knife injuries, yet it is not clear whether those inju
ries themselves were sufficient to result in death of the deceased person. The a
cts of the mob of which the appellant was a member cannot be said to be the resu
lt of an organization of group indulging in planned violent activities formed wi
th any prupose or scheme which can be called as an organized activity. The Supre
me Court, therefore, decided that on the totality of the circumstances, this is n
ot a case which can be called a rarest of rare case which warrants imposition of m
aximum sentence of death. Hence while confirming the conviction of the appellant
on charges framed against him, the sentence is reduced from capital punishment
to that of life imprisonment and with this modification, the appeal stands dismi
ssed.
In Mohd. Chaman V. State of Delhi, the accused had committed rape on a minor gir
l aged one and a half years when her parents were away from home. As a result of
this brutal and ghastly act the child suffered several injuries and died. The t
rial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death which was confirmed
by High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that, (1) the extreme penalty c
an be inflicted only in gravest cases of extreme culpability; (2) In making choi
ce of the sentence, in addition to the circumstances of the offence, due regard
must be paid to the circumstances of the offenders also.
The Court held that in exercise of its discretion in the above cases the court s
hall take into account the following circumstances_
(i) That the offence was committed under the influence of the extreme mental or
emotional disturbance.
(ii) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sen
tenced to death.
(iii) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violenc
e as would constitute a continuing threat of society.
(iv) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated.
(v) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he
was morally justified in committing the offence.

(vi) That the accused under the duress or domination of another person.
(vii) That the condition of the accused showed that he w as mentally defective a
nd that the said impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his cond
uct.
In the instant case the crime committed is undoubtedly serious and heinous and r
eveals a dirty and perverted mind of a person who has no control over his carnal
desires. The case is one which deserves humanist approach and therefore capital
sentence imposed against appellant is commuted to imprisonment for life.
In Edigma Anamma V. State of A.P., the appellant was convicted of double murder,
of a woman and her tender child, because of the jealousy generated by the fact
that the deceased woman had developed amorous relationship with the same man, a
widower, with whom the appellant had already been carrying on an affair. The sta
bbing of two persons was planned and ghastly in nature and careful steps were ta
ken to destroy the evidence by attempting to burn the body of the deceased woman
. The Supreme Court observed to justify its preference for life imprisonment to
capital sentence. The Court said that here the criminal s social and personal fact
ors are less harsh, her femininity and youth, her unbalanced sex life and expuls
ion from the conjugal home being the mother of a young boy-these individually in
conclusive and cumulatively marginal facts and circumstances-tend towards award
of life imprisonment.
The proper approach to the problem, perhaps will be that capital punishment must
be retained for incorrigibles and hardened criminals but its use should be limi
ted to rarest of rare cases . In view of the present deteriorating law and order si
tuation in India, total abolition of death sentence would mean giving a long rop
e of dangerous offenders to commit murder and heinous crimes with impunity.
The Supreme Court in Allauddin Mian V. State of Bihar has stressed on the penolo
gical aspect of death sentence and observed that provisions of the CrPC require
the sentencing Judge to state reasons for awarding death sentence and giving an
opportunity to the condemned person to be heard on the point of sentence, satisf
y the rule of natural justice and fair play.
In this case the accused persons came with deadly weapon in the house of his tar
get. On seeing the target they shouted to kill him. The person ran into a room t
o arm himself where his wife prevented him. At that time two daughters of his da
ughters were playing outside the room. Having failed to get him, accused gave fa
rsa blow on the head of the daughters and killed them.
In the instant case, the Apex Court noted that the trial Judge had not attached
sufficient importance to mandatory requirements of the above provisions and the
High Court confirmed the death sentence without having sufficient material place
d before it on record to know about the antecedents of the accused, his socio-ec
onomic conditions, and impact of crime etc. which rendered the rationale of the
Judgment doubtful.
In Anguswamy V. State of Tamil Nadu, appellants had a quarrel with some members
of a community. A constable came to inquire. He tried to caught the appellants.
Both the appellants inflicted injures on different parts of the body of police c
onstable and he died. The Trial Court awarded the death penalty which was allowe
d by High Court.
Here the Supreme Court observed that the trial court failed to take into conside
ration several relevant factors. AS there was no immediate need for their arrest
, no report was made against the appellants and no case was registered against h
em for the commission of any offence. The deceased acted over-zealously and atte
mpted to apprehend the appellants. Since the appellants felt that they were bein
g unjustly treated by the deceased and caused the injuries. It can not be said t
hat the attach was pre-planned. It was rather sudden and actuated by a desire to
free themselves. It, therefore, follow that the murder can not be said to belon
g to the rarest of rare category warranting the sentence of death.
The death penalty is no doubt unconstitutional if imposed arbitrarily but it if
administered rationally, objectively and judiciously, it will enhance people s con
fidence in criminal justice system.

Probation
Probation is the submission of an offender while at liberty to a specified period
of supervision by a social caseworker who is an officer of the court. Probation
of offenders has been widely accepted as one of the non-institutional methods of
dealing with corrigible offenders, particularly the young offenders and the fir
st offenders. It aims at rehabilitation of offender by returning them to society
during a period of supervision rather than by sending them into the unnatural a
nd socially unhealthy atmosphere of prisons. The offender is allowed to remain i
n the community and develop as a normal human being in his own natural surroundi
ngs. With the help of advanced techniques of social case-work, the probation off
ender endeavours to bring about the desired change in offenders attitude to life
and his social relationship with the community.
The release of offenders on probation is treatment device prescribed by the cour
t for persons convicted of offences against the law, during which the probatione
r lives in the community and regulates his own life under conditions imposed by
the court or other constituted authority, and is subject to supervision by a pro
bation officer.
The system of probation involves restriction on the liberty of probationer and r
efrains him from disapproved behaviour, or conversely, compels him to perform ce
rtain required acts which maybe irksome or even painful to him. The basic purpos
e is to keep the delinquent away from evil consequences of incarceration and off
er him an opportunity to lead socially useful life without violating the law.
Probation is often misconceived by some people as an easy let-off or a form of l
eniency and not a punishment. But this notion is rather misleading. Probation, w
hether it is for juveniles or adults, permits a more normal social experience th
an institutionalization and makes possible varying degrees of control over delin
quents together with the option of sentencing him to an institution if he violat
es probation conditions. In other words, probation enables the delinquent to mai
ntain contact with his family and other social agencies. It means a less routini
sed and more self-directed existence. Unlike imprisonment, it makes the offender
the probationer to keep himself away from criminogenic atmosphere of prison and
earn his living rather than leading an idle and wasteful life. He does not rema
in a burden on his family or society because he can earn his living himself. In
short, probation offers an opportunity for the probationer to adjust himself to
normal society thus avoiding an isolated and dull life in the prison.
The actual selection for release on probation depends on the careful investigati
on of personal case-history and social circumstances of the offender. The invest
igation is done by a Probation Officer who prepare a pre-sentence report to find
before the trial court prior to the final disposal of the case. The system of p
robation involves conditional suspension of punishment.
According to Howard Jones, the following conditions must be fulfilled before all
owing the benefit of release on probations to an accused person:
(1) No punishment should be imposed initially;
(2) The offender should be given a definite period to redeem himself;
(3) During this period, delinquent should be placed under supervision of a proba
tion officer for two obvious reasons:
a. In order to keep the court informed about his progress; and

b. To help him to make the best use of the opportunity given to them.
(4) If the offender responds favourably, his initial crime should be deemed to h
ave been scrapped, but if he fails to do so, he maybe brought back to court and
sentenced for the original crime as also for any other crime he might have commi
tted.
It is thus evident that probation is not a let-off as alleged by some critics beca
use the probationer must either respond favourably to reformation or suffer impr
isonment later.
The Supreme Court spelt the object of the Probation of Offenders Acts is to stop
conversion of youthful offenders into stubborn criminals as a result of their a
ssociation with hardened criminals of mature age in case of youthful offenders a
re sentenced to undergo imprisonment in jail. Modern Criminals jurisprudence rec
ognizes that no one is born criminal and that a good many crimes are the result
of socio-economic milieu. Although not much can be done for hardened criminals,
yet a considerable emphasis has been laid on bringing about reform of young offe
nders not guilty of very serious offense by preventing their association with ha
rdened criminals. The Act gives statutory recognition to the above objective. Pr
obation is designed only for those who have prospects to reform.
The Probation of Offenders Act contains elaborate provisions relating to probati
on of offenders which are made applicable through out the country. The Act provi
des four different modes of dealing with youthful and other offenders in lieu of
sentence subject to certain conditions. These include:(1) release after admonition;
(2) release on entering a bond on probation of good conduct with or without supe
rvision, and on payment by the offender the compensation and costs to the victim
if so ordered, the courts being empowered to vary the conditions of the bond an
d to sentence and impose a fine if he failed to observe the conditions of the bo
nd;
(3) persons under 21years of age are not to be sentenced to imprisonment unless
the court calls for a report from the probation officer or record reasons to the
contrary in writing;
(4) the person released on probation does not suffer a disqualification attached
to a conviction under any other law.
Thus it would be seen that the provisions of the Act are not confined to Juvenil
es alone, but extend to adults also. Again, provisions of the Act are not confin
ed to offences committed under the IPC but they extend to offences under other l
aws. The higher courts have been empowered to grant probation in appropriate cas
es, which was denied to the accused by the lower court. They may also cancel pro
bation granted by the trial courts.
The appropriate stage at which probation order may be made by a court is at the
time of pronouncement of judgment. The Judge may make such an order straightway
without calling for a report from the probation officer or he may prefer to call
for a report. However, it is always advisable to call for a report from the pro
bation officer because at times material available on record in course of trial
is hardly sufficient for the presiding Judge to make up his mind on the point wh
ether the accused should be admitted to the benefit of release on probation or n
ot. The court must record a clear finding about the age of the offender after re
cording necessary evidence.
Besides the Probation of Offenders Act the provisions of Section 360 and 27 of t
he Cr.P.C. and Juvenile Justice Act also provide for the release of certain offe
nders on probation.
(i) Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. provides the rationale of protection which is ext
ended to young offenders. Firstly, the section excludes certain types of offende
rs from the purview of the Probation of Offenders Act. Secondly, the section pre
scribes certain age-limit for offenders to be admitted for release on probation;
and thirdly, the section explicitly provides that probation applies only to the
first offenders. Law suggests a selective application of the probation service
to only those offenders who are likely to respond favourably to the rehabilitati
ve process.
(ii) Section 27 of Cr.P.C. provides that any offence not punishable with death o

r imprisonment for life, committed by any person who at the date when he appears
or is brought before the court, is under the age of sixteen years, may be tried
by the court of a Judicial Magistrate or by any Court specially empowered or an
y other law for the time being in force providing for the treatment, training or
rehabilitation of youthful offenders. It must be noted that the age-limit of a
juvenile was raised from 15 to 16 years to avoid inconsistency with the provisio
ns of law contained in the earlier Children Act and it is now 18 years under the
Juvenile Justice Act.
(iii) The Juvenile Justice Act enunciates the measures for custody and control o
f destitute and neglected children and also provides of the protection and treat
ment of delinquent children in need of care and protection as also the children
who are uncontrollable and victims of one or the other offence.
(iv) The Juvenile Justice Act further provides for the release of children who h
ave committed offences, on probation of good conduct and placing them under the
care of their parents or guardians or other fit persons executing a bond, with o
r without sureties to be responsible fro good behaviour and well being of the ju
venile for any period not exceeding three years.
Offenders whether below 21 or above 21 years of age are equally entitled to avai
l the benefit of release on probation of good conduct or after admonition. The C
ourt is competent to release a previous convict on probation if it thinks it pro
per to do so having regard to the circumstances of the case including the charac
ter of the offender and nature of the offence.
The final verdict as to whether an offender deserves to be admitted to he benefi
t of release on probation or not, lies with the court. The Judge has to use his
discretion in the matter most judiciously.
In State of M.P. V. Bhola, it was observed that it indicates the intention of th
e legislature that the benefit of release on probation for good conduct in priso
n is to be made available not to all but to certain prisoners meaning prisoners of
a particular class. Thus they can be classified in relation to the offences com
mitted by them for which they are sentenced. Reformative system of punishment by
releasing prisoners on the basis of their good conduct in prison and for tuning
them out as good citizens after they serve out their periods of sentences is no
t to be resorted to indiscriminately without reference to the nature of offence
for which they are convicted. It is open to the legislature to lay down a genera
l policy permitting reformative method of punishment but by limiting its applica
tion to less serious crimes. Gravity of offence is an integral dimension in deci
ding whether a prisoner should be released or not. If we see that offences menti
oned in rule 3(a), in the category of exclusion therein are such serious or hein
ous offences which are against community and society in general where even relea
se on probation may be found hazardous because of the possibility of the crime b
eing repeated or the prisoner escaping. Habitual offenders or those dealing in e
xplosive substances or involved in dacoities and robberies are treated as crimin
als guilty of heinous crimes who deserve to be treated differently from other of
fenders guilty of less serious crimes. The offenders could be classified thus re
asonably with the object to be fulfilled of reformation of those prisoners who s
how prospectus of some reforms. Classification can also be made between habitual
and non-habitual offender or between corrigibles and incorrigibles.
In Abdul Qayum V. State of Bihar, the appellant aged sixteen years pick-pocketed
rupees fifty six. Despite probation officer s favourable report for release on pr
obation, he was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment by the trial court
because of his association with a seasoned pick-pocket. On appeal, however, the
Supreme Court directed the trial court to place him under probation.
The Supreme Court observed that there was no warrant for inferring that the appe
llant was his associate. A reference to the report of the Probation Officer woul
d show that the accused was approximately 18 years of age and physically and men
tally normal. Though he was illiterate he had a vocational aptitude for tailorin
g and was working in Bihar Tailoring Works. He was interested towards his work a
s a tailor and behaves properly with his father and brothers and has normal asso
ciation with friends. There is no report against the character of the offender,
no previous conviction has been proved against him prior to this case and in the

circumstances the release on probation may be a suitable method to deal with hi

m.
In another case the Orissa High Court shows even much more latitude to young off
enders in Jogi Nayak V. State. In this case, the accused, a young boy of 15 year
s, was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fo
r one year. The boy had removed jewellery from the body of a young girl after ma
king her unconscious by inflicting grievous injuries to her. In this case, it wa
s held that probation could not be granted since the offence was punishable with
life imprisonment. But strangely enough, after holding that boy could not be re
leased on probation, the High Court ordered his release by saying that the accus
ed was a young boy and a longer stay in the company of criminals would only turn
him into hardened criminal and the sentence was reduced to the period already u
ndergone. It was ironical that by placing a restricted construction on the statu
te, the court found probation inapplicable and let the boy loose, unsupervised,
on society.
The Supreme Court took a strict view of the case involving sex-perversity and re
fused to allow the benefit of release on probation to the accused in Smt. Devki
alias Kalia V. State of Haryana. In this case the petitioner was found guilty of
abducting a teenage girl of 17 years and forcing her to sexual submission with
commercial object and was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for three y
ears imprisonment. The sentence was confirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the
Supreme Court refused to allow the benefit of probation to the accused keeping i
n view the moral turpitude and heinousness of the offence.
In Rajbir Raghubir Singh V. State of Haryana, the accused a government servant w
as convicted and placed on probation for good conduct. It was held by the Suprem
e Court that in particular facts of the case, the conviction should not affect h
is service.
The historical decision in Ishwar Das V. State of Punjab, however, made a depart
ure from the Court s liberal approach to offenders found guilty of offences involv
ing public welfare. A tendency to keep such anti-social activities outside the p
urview of the probation law is clearly noticed in the subsequent decisions. Thou
gh the Supreme Court allowed the benefit of probation in the instant case, leavi
ng a note of caution, it inter alia observed:
Adulteration of food is a menace to public health. The Prevention of Food Adulte
ration Act has been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evil an
d for ensuring purity in the articles of food. The Courts should not lightly res
ort to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in the case of persons a
bove 21years of age found guilty of offence under the Prevention of Food Adulter
ation Act.
The Supreme Court decision in Pyarali K Tejani V. M.R. Dange, further supports t
he judicial trend for cautious approach to the application of probation in law t
o adulteration cases. In this case the accused was convicted for selling adulter
ated supari with prohibited sweeteners under the Prevention of Food Adulteration A
ct. Disallowing the benefit of probation to the appellant Krishna Iyer observed:
The kindly application of the probation principle is negatived by the imperative
s of social defence and the probabilities of more proselytisation. No chances ca
n be taken by society with a man whose anti-social operations guised as a respec
table trade, imperial numerous innocents. He is a security risk. Secondly, those
economic offences committed by White collar criminals are unlikely to be dissua
ded by the gentle probationary process.
It has now been universally accepted that in order to achieve progressive correc
tional standards there must be added emphasis on probation. Its exponents must i
nterpret the philosophy underlying probation more clearly and initiate a definit
e campaign of education that will break down prejudices against correctional met
hods and explain their wider objectives. It is a modern technique in the field o
f correctional therapy which must be used extensively for treatment of offenders
.
Despite the criticism of probation from certain quarters, the fact remains that
it is perhaps the only reformative technique which fully endorses the cause of h
uman dignity. Probation, in fact, is an opportunity to an offender to struggle to

recapture self-respect .

Juvenile Justice
Delinquency is a form of behaviour or rather misbehaviour or deviation from the
generally accepted norms of conduct in the society. The term Juvenile delinquenc
y refers to a large variety of disapproved behaviours of children and adolescent
s which the society does not approve of, and for which some kind of admonishment
, punishment or corrective measure is justified in the public interest. It inclu
des rebellious and hostile behaviour of children and their attitude of indiffere
nce towards society. It may, therefore, be inferred that a juvenile is a adolesc
ent person between childhood and manhood or womanhood, as the case may be, who i
ndulges in some kind of anti-social behaviour, which is not checked, may turn hi
m into a potential offender. A child might be regarded as delinquent when his an
ti-social conduct inflicts suffering upon others.
Every conduct prohibited by statute is not to be taken as an act of delinquency.
Instead, the conduct which tends to constitute an offence, not only from the le
gal standpoint but also from the angle of prevalent social norms and values shal
l be included within the meaning of the term delinquency.
Causes of Juvenile Delinquency:
(i) The industrial development and economic growth in India has resulted into ur
banization which in turn has given rise to new problems such as housing, slum dw
elling, overcrowding etc. The high cost of living in urban areas makes it necess
ary even for women to take up outside jobs with the result their children are le
ft neglected at home. Moreover, temptation for modern luxuries of life lures you
ng people to resort to wrongful means to satisfy their wants.
(ii) Disintegration of family system and laxity in parental control over childre
n.
(iii) Unprecedented increase in divorce cases and matrimonial disputes is yet an
other cause for disrupting family solidarity.
(iv) The rapidly changing patterns in modern living also make it difficult for c
hildren and adolescents to adjust themselves to new ways of life. They are confr
onted with the problem of culture conflict and are unable to differentiate betwe
en right and wrong.
(v) Biological factors such as, early physiological maturity or low intelligence
, also account for delinquent behaviour among juveniles.
(vi) Migration of deserted and destitute boys to slumps brings them in contact w
ith anti-social. Thus, they lend into the world of delinquency without knowing w
hat they are doing is prohibited by law.
(vii) Poverty is yet another potential cause of juvenile delinquency. Failure of
parents to provide necessities of life.
(viii) Besides the aforesaid causes, illiteracy, child labour, squalor, etc. are
also some of the contributing factors.
The English criminal justice administrators have preferred to deal with it outsi
de the framework of criminal law. Many reformists feel that delinquency among ad
olescents is a transient phase and will disappear as they grow older, hence they
need to be tackled differently.
The impact of western civilization and temptation for luxuries and pompous life
has greatly disturbed the modern Indian youth. India also seeks to tackle the pr
oblem of juvenile delinquency on basis of three fundamental assumptions:
(i) Young offenders should not be tried, they should rather be corrected;
(ii) They shold not be punished but be reformed; and
(iii) Exclusion of delinquents i.e. children in conflict with law from the ambit
of court and stress on their non-penal treatment through community based social

control agencies such a Juvenile Justice Board, Observation Homes, Special Home
s, etc.
Any violation of existing penal law of the country committed by a child under ei
ghteen years, shall be an act in conflict with law for the jurisdiction of Juven
ile Justice Board.
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, lays down a separate procedure for dealing with the
neglected and uncontrollable juveniles who have been termed as children in need o
f care and protection . The former are to be dealt with the Juvenile Justice Board
. The Act clearly indicate that unlike USA and England, the courts in India do n
ot have jurisdiction in relation to child in conflict with law. There is no diff
erence between the contents of delinquency and an offence. The only difference i
s that an offence committed by an adult person is triable in ordinary court wher
eas the juvenile who commits a delinquent act is proceeded against the Juvenile
Justice Board through special procedure.
In the Act a juvenile who has committed an offence is not addressed as juvenile d
elinquent , instead he is called a juvenile in conflict with law . The object perhaps
is to avoid stigma which the word delinquent carries with it in the case of juven
ile offenders.
The trial of a juvenile in conflict with law is held by the Juvenile Justice Boa
rd which has to consider the following issues in respect of the age of the juven
ile before proceeding with the trial:
(i) whether the person before it i.e. Juvenile Justice Board, is within the pres
cribed age of 18 years or not; and
(ii) for the purpose of determining the age, the relevant date is the date on wh
ich the juvenile brought before the Board for inquiry and proceedings.
The Madhya Pradesh High court in its decision in Sunil & another V. State, clari
fied that the Court cannot leave the determination of age of juvenile entirely o
n the evidence of juvenile, but it is required to make an inquiry suo moto. In t
his case, the ADJ, had rejected the bail application of the accused on the basis
of ossification test and medical report which showed that the appellant was not
a juvenile. The High Court ruled that ossification test is not a conclusive pro
of in the matter and it is the primary duty of the court to find out whether app
licants are covered by the Juvenile Justice Act or not and the juvenile may be a
ble to lead any evidence as to his exact age. The Court must do participatory jus
tice and exercise suo moto powers rather than be a silent spectator.
In the case of Krishna Bhagwan V. State of Bihar, the High Court observed that f
or determination of the age of the juvenile for the purpose of his trial under t
he Juvenile Act, the relevant date should be the date on which the offence was c
ommitted. Therefore, where the juvenile accused is within the age limit prescrib
ed by the Act, he or she should be tried in a Juvenile Court despite the fact th
at he exceeded that age limit at the time when he was brought before the Court f
or trial.
In a case the Supreme Court ruled if there are two conflicting views about a par
ticular issue, the one which is beneficial to the accused be accepted. According
, accordingly the accused be treated as juvenile and be tried under the Juvenile
Justice Act.
In Sanjay Suri V. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court had to lady down a dut
y on the jail authorities that no young person was to be admitted to an adult ja
il unless the Court certified that the person was above the age prescribed for j
uvenile offenders. The Supreme Court issued the directive that in all warrants o
f detention the age of the detenu must be specified to ensure that no juvenile i
s sent to adult prison. Further, the jail authorities must not accept any warran
t unless age is specified in it.
Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 wh
ich provides that where the court is satisfied that at the beginning of inquiry,
the accused was a juvenile, his trial under the Act would continue even if he o
r she crosses the prescribed maximum age of 18 years during trial proceedings. T
hus the crucial date for determination of age of the accused to be tried under J
uvenile Justice Act would be the date on which he was produced before the compet
ent authority or Juvenile Justice Board for inquiry or trial.

In Raghbir V. State of Haryana, The Supreme Court held that the Haryana Children
Act was to prevail over Section 27 of the Cr.P.C. and even a child accused of a
n offence punishable with death or life imprisonment could not be tried by ordin
ary criminal courts.
Section 12 of the Act provides that the juveniles should be released on bail as
a general rule and should be sent to jail/ Observation Home only in special case
s.
The Juvenile Justice Board may order the release of juveniles in conflict with l
aw on probation of good conduct and place him under the care of his parents, gua
rdians or any other person. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the
case, the Board may also direct the juvenile to enter into a bond, with or witho
ut sureties. But the period of such order of release on probation shall not exce
ed 3 years. Besides, the Board may order the placement of juvenile in a Special
Home.
The Juvenile Justice Board is also empowered to order the placement of the juven
ile found guilty of an offence to be placed under the supervision of the Probati
on Officer for a period not exceeding three years and the Probation Officer shal
l submit the periodical report about the juvenile and his progress in reformatio
n.
The proceedings of the Juvenile Justice Board being of a confidential nature, th
eir publication is strictly prohibited in the interest of the juvenile. No newsp
aper or magazine etc. shall publish the name, address, photograph or details or
particulars of the juvenile or report of proceedings against him. Any contravent
ion of this provision shall be punishable with fine which may extent to one thou
sand rupees. The Act does not permit joint trial of a juvenile with a person who
is not a juvenile.
Section 22 of the Act contains special provision in respect of juveniles who hav
e escaped from Observation Home, Special Home or from the custody of a person. T
he section expects a liberal and sympathetic approach towards such juveniles.
A child in need of care and protection as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act mea
ns a child who is found without any home or settled place of abode and without m
eans of subsistence or who is neglected by his parent or guardian or does not ha
ve parent and no one is willing to take care of him etc. The Act empowers the St
ate Government to constitute Child Welfare Committees for care and protection of
children who are in need. Act further provides for establishment of Shelter Hom
es for destitute and shelterless children.
Four alternative measures for the rehabilitation and re-orientation of such juve
niles and children are suggested in Section 40 of the Act which are as follows:
(1) Adoption of orphaned, abandoned, neglected or abused children through instit
utional or non-institutional means.
(2) Foster care is used for temporary placement of those infants who are ultimat
ely to be sent to some institution or individual for adoption.
(3) Sponsorship programme may provide supplementary support to families, childre
n, home, Special Homes etc, to meet the needs of the children.
(4) After-care Programme provides necessary supervision and guidance to juvenile
and children after their release from Children s Home.
If in the opinion of the competent authority, the presence of juvenile in confli
ct with law or child is not necessary in proceedings against him, it may be disp
ensed with. The personal attendance of accused in inquiry or trial is generally
dispensed with keeping in view the nature and position of parties in the case.
The procedure followed in the proceeding against juvenile offender under the Juv
enile Justice Act, 2000, differs from that of an ordinary criminal trial, and, t
herefore, it can be rightly termed as special procedure in view of the following c
onsiderations:
(i) The proceedings cannot be initiated on a complaint from a citizen of the pol
ice.
(ii) The hearing is informal and strictly confidential.
(iii) The juvenile offender while under detention, is kept in separate Observati
on Home.
(iv) The young offender may be reprimanded on security or bond for good behaviou

r.
(v) The trial of juvenile in conflict with law is usually conducted by lady Magi
strate specially deputed for the purpose.
(vi) The procedure followed in the trial of juvenile in conflict with law being
informal, he has no right to engage the services of a lawyer in the case.
(vii) No appeal lies against the order of acquittal made by the Juvenile Justice
Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence. An appeal
shall, however, lie against the order of the Board to the Sessions Court within
a period of 30 days whose decision shall be final and there is no provision for
second appeal.
It must be stated that the treatment offered to juvenile offenders under the Ind
ian law is prompted by humanitarian considerations but the fact remains that the
very concept of juvenile delinquency goes against the spirit of the law relatin
g to liberty, which provides that no one can be proceeded against unless he is c
harged for some specific offence.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is a comprehens
ive legislation which contemplates the creation and institution of authorities f
or the care, protection and correction of juvenile delinquents but the manner of
implementation of this welfare legislation is not yet effective in large parts
of India.