Yet another penal device which marks a radical departure from the traditional concept of punishment is the system of indeterminate sentence. The system, originated from the west and was overwhelmingly favoured by most European countries. The success of probation and parole as a measure of treatment reaction to crime, has, however, overshadowed the system of indeterminate sentence which is fast losing its significance in modern penology.
The first manifestation about the abhorrence of retribution and deterrance and inclination for individualisation and reformation came in the shape of protest against fixed sentences. Flexibility and elasticity in penal sentence was deemed necessary for proper rehabilitation of inmates through treatment methods. The reformation of prisoners could not be possible if the sentences were determinate and the term of imprisonment fixed and definite.
The system of indeterminate sentence was therefore, regarded quite consistent with the requirements of the principle of individualisation. Under this system the Penal Code prescribes a minimum and a maximum sentence for a particular offence thus leaving sufficient scope for the discretion of Prison Board to release the offender on parole if he reacted favourably to treatment methods of the prison. Speaking about indeterminate sentence, Sanford Bates the former Minister of Federal Prison Bureau and Commissioner of Institutions and Agencies of New Jersey observed, “apart from the inducement to good behaviour in prisons such as good-time laws, etc. if best results are to be obtained from the prison sentence and the ensuing parole period, the date of release must be a flexible one”.
Although flexibility in punishment carries with it an element of uncertainty and a consequential increase in the potential of disparity but if the Prison Boards and parole authorities make right use of discretion regarding the release of inmate after he completes the minimum sentence prescribed in his case, there is no reason why the scheme should fail. Some penologists argue that it is a misnomer to call such a sentence as indeterminate, particularly when the minimum and the maximum limits are set out under the law.
In their opinion, it ought to be called as ‘indefinite sentence’. But it is difficult to agree with this view because the word ‘indefinite’ carries with it an impression that the sentence is to continue for an inordinately longer period which is certainly not the object of indeterminate sentence. The term “indeterminate sentence” therefore, seems to be fitting and appropriate.
There is no denying the fact that rehabilitation is the prime object of sentencing process particularly in case of juvenile and young offenders. The system of indeterminate sentence first began as an agency of correctional method for young offenders so that they could be released earlier if they responded favourably to the rehabilitative processes during the period of custody and control in the institution.
The maximum limit of confinement in their case could be the age of attaining majority The pre-mature release secured under indeterminate sentence could be with or without parole depending on the requirement of the institutional ‘after-care’ of the inmate concerned. The main object of indeterminate sentence is to inculcate hope rather than fear in the mind of inmate undergoing imprisonment.
It also makes the inmate realise that his future lies in his own hands and he could secure an early release from the institution if he showed interest and sincerity in work and labour allotted to him. The greatest advantage of indeterminate sentence lies in the fact that it is aimed at correcting the inmate rather than ill-treating him.
No comments:
Post a Comment