Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:54:53.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Determination of Sentences in India: Policy and Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2023

Parth Singh*
Affiliation:
Honourable High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, India

Abstract

Judiciary and litigation are the two most prominent types of activities within the legal profession. The judicial aspect of the profession entails the interpretation of laws and the administration of justice in a fair and impartial manner. As a concept, justice entails protecting society from offenders and evildoers who deviate from society’s norms and engage in illegal behaviour by punishing and sentencing them. Due to the predominance of the human factor in the legal profession, which has such a significant impact on the lives of all members of society, it is crucial to investigate whether there is a guiding force behind dispensing justice and, if so, how effective these guidelines or policy measures have been. As crime rates rise and societal standards fall in the contemporary era, the legal profession grapples with the complexities of modern criminal behaviour. Particularly in the realm of judicial sentencing, there is a need for guidelines that account for the diversity of crimes and their individualistic nature. In India, long pungencies in court cases and a decline in the State’s conviction rate further exacerbate these issues. This paper examines the pressing need for comprehensive, well-structured sentencing guidelines that promote transparency, fairness and efficiency in the judicial process. Through a detailed review of recent high-profile court cases and an analysis of current practices and policies, this paper highlights the urgency of reform in the sentencing process to enhance public trust in the legal system. This article provides additional information on the subject.

Abstracto

Abstracto

La audiencia y los litigios son los dos tipos de actividades más prominentes dentro de la profesión legal. El aspecto judicial de la profesión implica la interpretación de las leyes y la administración de la justicia de manera justa e imparcial. Como concepto, la Justicia implica proteger a la sociedad de los delincuentes y malhechores que se desvían de las normas de la sociedad y se involucran en comportamientos ilegales al castigarlos y sentenciarlos. Debido al predominio del factor humano en la profesión jurídica, que tiene un impacto tan significativo en la vida de todos los miembros de la sociedad, es crucial investigar si existe una fuerza rectora detrás de la impartición de justicia y, de ser así, qué tan efectivas son estas directrices o han sido las medidas políticas. A medida que aumentan las tasas de criminalidad y los estándares sociales caen en la era contemporánea, la profesión legal se enfrenta a las complejidades del comportamiento delictivo moderno. Particularmente en el ámbito de las sentencias judiciales, existe la necesidad de lineamientos que den cuenta de la diversidad de delitos y su naturaleza individualista. Los largos episodios punzantes en los casos judiciales y una disminución en la tasa de condenas del estado exacerban aún más estos problemas. Este documento examina la necesidad apremiante de pautas de sentencia integrales y bien estructuradas que promuevan la transparencia, la equidad y la eficiencia en el proceso judicial. A través de una revisión detallada de casos judiciales recientes de alto perfil y un análisis de las prácticas y políticas actuales, este documento destaca la urgencia de reformar el proceso de sentencia para mejorar la confianza pública en el sistema legal. Este artículo proporciona información adicional sobre el tema.

Abstrait

ABSTRAIT

Le judiciaire et le contentieux sont les deux types d’activités les plus importants au sein de la profession juridique. L’aspect judiciaire de la profession implique l’interprétation des lois et l’administration de la justice de manière juste et impartiale. En tant que concept, la justice implique la protection de la société contre les délinquants et les malfaiteurs qui s’écartent des normes de la société et adoptent un comportement illégal en les punissant et en les condamnant. En raison de la prédominance du facteur humain dans la profession d’avocat, qui a un impact si important sur la vie de tous les membres de la société, il est crucial de rechercher s’il existe une force directrice derrière l’exercice de la justice et, le cas échéant, quelle est l’efficacité de ces lignes directrices ou mesures politiques. Alors que les taux de criminalité augmentent et que les normes sociétales chutent à l’ère contemporaine, la profession juridique est aux prises avec les complexités du comportement criminel moderne. En particulier dans le domaine de la détermination de la peine judiciaire, il est nécessaire de disposer de lignes directrices qui tiennent compte de la diversité des crimes et de leur nature individualiste. De longues peines dans les affaires judiciaires et une baisse du taux de condamnation de l’État aggravent encore ces problèmes. Cet article examine le besoin pressant de lignes directrices complètes et bien structurées en matière de détermination de la peine qui favorisent la transparence, l’équité et l’efficacité du processus judiciaire. Grâce à un examen détaillé des récentes affaires judiciaires très médiatisées et à une analyse des pratiques et des politiques actuelles, ce document souligne l’urgence d’une réforme du processus de détermination de la peine pour renforcer la confiance du public dans le système judiciaire. Cet article fournit des informations supplémentaires sur le sujet.

抽象的

抽象的

司法和诉讼是法律职业中最重要的两种活动类型。 该职业的司法方面需要以公平和公正的方式解释法律和司法行政。 作为一个概念,正义意味着通过惩罚和判刑来保护社会免受偏离社会规范和从事非法行为的罪犯和作恶者的侵害。 由于人的因素在法律职业中占主导地位,对社会所有成员的生活产生如此重大的影响,因此有必要调查司法公正背后是否存在指导力量,如果有,这些指导方针或措施的有效性如何?政策措施已出。 随着当代犯罪率上升和社会标准下降,法律界正在努力应对现代犯罪行为的复杂性。 特别是在司法量刑领域,需要制定考虑到犯罪多样性及其个人主义性质的指导方针。 法庭案件的长期棘手和该州定罪率的下降进一步加剧了这些问题。 本文探讨了对全面、结构良好的量刑指南的迫切需求,以促进司法过程的透明度、公平性和效率。 通过对最近备受瞩目的法院案件的详细回顾以及对当前实践和政策的分析,本文强调了量刑过程改革的紧迫性,以增强公众对法律体系的信任。 本文提供了有关该主题的更多信息

خلاصة

خلاصة

يعتبر القضاء والتقاضي أبرز نوعين من الأنشطة في مهنة المحاماة ، ويتطلب الجانب القضائي من المهنة تفسير القوانين وإقامة العدل بطريقة عادلة ونزيهة. والأشرار الذين يخرجون عن أعراف المجتمع وينخرطون في سلوك غير قانوني من خلال معاقبتهم والحكم عليهم. نظرًا لغلبة العامل البشري في مهنة المحاماة ، والتي لها تأثير كبير على حياة جميع أفراد المجتمع ، فمن الأهمية بمكان ما إذا كانت هناك قوة توجيهية وراء توفير العدالة ، وإذا كان الأمر كذلك ، ما مدى فعالية هذه الإرشادات أو تدابير السياسة. مع ارتفاع معدلات الجريمة وانخفاض المعايير المجتمعية في العصر المعاصر ، تتصارع مهنة القانون مع تعقيدات السلوك الإجرامي الحديث. في مجال الأحكام القضائية على وجه الخصوص ، هناك حاجة إلى مبادئ توجيهية تراعي تنوع الجرائم وطبيعتها الفردية. وتؤدي الحماسة الطويلة في قضايا المحاكم والانخفاض في معدل الإدانة في الدولة إلى تفاقم هذه المشكلات. تبحث هذه الورقة في الحاجة الملحة للحصول على إرشادات شاملة وجيدة التنظيم لإصدار الأحكام والتي تعزز الشفافية والإنصاف والكفاءة في العملية القضائية. من خلال مراجعة مفصلة لقضايا المحكمة رفيعة المستوى الأخيرة وتحليل الممارسات والسياسات الحالية ، تسلط هذه الورقة الضوء على الحاجة الملحة للإصلاح في عملية إصدار الأحكام لتعزيز ثقة الجمهور في النظام القانوني. توفر هذه المقالة معلومات إضافية حول هذا الموضوع

Type
Article
Copyright
© International Society of Criminology, 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagaric, Mirko. 2000. “Proportionality in Sentencing: Its Justification, Meaning, and Role.” Current Issues in Criminal Justice 12(2):145–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J. 1907 [1789]. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cassell, Paul G. and Luna, Erik. 2011. “Sense and Sensibility in Mandatory Minimum Sentencing.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 23(3):219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhury, Sohini. 2022. “‘Over 40 Million Cases Pending; Something Drastic has to be Done’: Attorney General Rings Alarm Bells on Pendency.” LiveLaw.in, 29 April 2022, retrieved 25 May 2022 (https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/attorney-general-rings-alarm-bells-on-pendency-40-million-cases-pending-197892?infinitescroll=1).Google Scholar
Chugh, Bharat. 2020. “Taking White Collar Crime Seriously.” LiveLaw.in, 13 July 2020, retrieved 21 May 2022 (https://www.livelaw.in/columns/taking-white-collar-crime-seriously-159796?infinitescroll=1).Google Scholar
Frase, Richard. 1999. “Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota, Other States, and the Federal Courts: A Twenty-Year Retrospective.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 12:69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frase, Richard S. 2009. “What Explains Persistent Racial Disproportionality in Minnesota’s Prison and Jail Populations?Crime and Justice 38(1):201–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frase, Richard S. and Lyn Mitchell, Kelly. 2018. “What Are Sentencing Guidelines?” Sentencing Guidelines Resource Center, 21 March 2018, retrieved 19 July 2023 (https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/articles/what-are-sentencing-guidelines).Google Scholar
Government of India. 2015. Law Commission of India Report No. 262: The Death Penalty. New Delhi: Government of India. Retrieved 18 July 2023 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35654105/).Google Scholar
Government of India, Law Commission of India. 2014. Consultation Paper on Capital Punishment. May 2014. Retrieved 1 August 2023 (https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-378921.pdf).Google Scholar
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. 2003. Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice Report, Vol. I. Bangalore: Ministry of Home Affairs. Retrieved 20 July 2023 (https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/criminal_justice_system.pdf).Google Scholar
Jain, Akanksha. 2018. “Blackbuck Poaching Case: Bees Saal Baad Salman Khan Sentenced To 5 Yrs In Jail, Co-Stars Saif Ali Khan, Neelam, Tabu Acquitted [Read Judgment].” LiveLaw.in, 5 April 2018, retrieved 19 May 2022 (https://www.livelaw.in/blackbuck-poaching-case-bees-saal-baad-salman-khan-sentenced-5-yrs-jail-co-stars-saif-ali-khan-neelam-tabu-acquitted/?infinitescroll=1).Google Scholar
Lubitz, Robin L. and Ross, Thomas W.. 2001. “Sentencing Guidelines: Reflections on the Future.” Papers from the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, June 2001, retrieved 19 July 2023 (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/186480.pdf).Google Scholar
Mishra, Tweisha and Pachauri, Shantanu. 2018. “Developing a Uniform Sentencing Policy for Rape with Special Reference to the Issue of Compromise.” NUJS SACJ Criminal Law Review 2018:3708224 (http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3708224).Google Scholar
Mustafa, Faizan. 2018. “Why Salman Khan’s Sentence Is Harsh & Retributive? There Are No Statutory Sentencing Guidelines In India.” LiveLaw.in, 23 April 2018, retrieved 29 May 2022 (https://www.livelaw.in/salman-khans-sentence-harsh-retributive-no-statutory-sentencing-guidelines-india/?infinitescroll=1).Google Scholar
National Crime Records Bureau. 2020. Crime in India 2020. New Delhi: National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs. Retrieved 17 May 2022 (https://ncrb.gov.in/en/Crime-in-India-2020).Google Scholar
Premani, Vanshika. 2021. “The Exigency of Sentencing Policy in India: An Analytical Approach.” Supremo Amicus 25:PIF, 6.242.Google Scholar
Rashid, M. A. 2014. “Jayalalithaa Case – Same Day Conviction and Sentence – Bangalore Court or Times of India? Who Went Wrong?!” LiveLaw.in, 2 October 2014, retrieved 1 June 2022 (https://www.livelaw.in/jayalalithaa-case-day-conviction-sentence-bangalore-court-times-india-went-wrong/).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V. 2005. Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Some Representative Models. Ottawa: Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved 19 July 2023 (https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr05_10/rr05_10.pdf).Google Scholar
Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indermaur, D., and Hough, M.. 2003. Penal Populism and Public Opinion. Lessons from Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roffee, James. 2015. “Andrew Ashworth and Julian V. Roberts, Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model .” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 48(4):589–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shivani, A. 2022. “India: A Country of Rising Numbers and Falling Standards.” LiveLaw.in, 7 September 2018, retrieved 31 May 2022 (https://www.livelaw.in/india-a-country-of-rising-numbers-and-falling-standards/).Google Scholar
Swathi, M. and Roja, K.. 2018. “A Critical Study on Capital Punishment in India.” International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 120(5a):911–22. Retrieved 20 July 2023 (https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/1/98.pdf).Google Scholar
Tata, C. 2007. “In the Interests of Clients or Commerce? Legal Aid, Supply, Demand, and ‘Ethical Indeterminacy’ in Criminal Defence Work.” Journal of Law and Society 34(4):489519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonry, Michael. 2009. “The Most Unintended Effects of Mandatory Penalties: Two Centuries of Consistent Findings.” Crime and Justice 38(1):65114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar