Social Rehabilitation of Offenders

There is yet another method of social rehabilitation of offenders which has assumed great importance in recent times. It is commonly called the method of “suspended sentence”. The method of suspended sentence is different from that of indeterminate sentence. In the former, the offender is prosecuted for his guilt but he is not institutionalised while in the latter he is sentenced for an uncertain term with at least the minimum for that particular offence after which his release depends on the Administrative Board’s reaction to his good behaviour.

Since the courts are motivated by humanitarian consideration, they prefer to punish the offender with suspended sentence rather than with the indeterminate one, and this has eventually led to the evolution of system of parole, probation and other correctional methods of treatment of offenders.

It must also be stated that just as the system of parole is based on indeterminate sentence, the system of probation is based on suspended sentence. Besides parole and probation, there are a number of other quasi-penal institutions such as reformatories, borstals and rescue homes which are engaged in the task of bringing about rehabilitation of offenders in society.

More recently, there has been a growing tendency in some countries to relieve the courts of their power and control over the punishment and treatment of offenders and pass it on to the professional bodies or Administrative Boards. In Scandinavia and some States of America as also in England and Scotland, the decision about the treatment of young offender is taken out of the criminal courts and handed over wholly to the professional experts in correctional services.

Even in matters of adults, the power of the Court to control the duration, nature and security of confinement has been considerably curtailed and in some cases even withdrawn. With the introduction of probation, parole and indeterminate sentence, the actual date of release of offender is determined by those who are in charge of his custody.

Thus, the object underlying these correctional measures is to correlate sentence to reformation of the offender and ensure protection of others rather than the old fashioned ideas of retribution cherished by the courts.

Indeterminate sentence has not been accepted in the Indian penal system though it is being extensively used in the United States and some of the European countries. In the strict sense, the sentence is ‘indeterminate’ when no minimum or maximum limit is laid down by the penal law, but in actual practice the court invariably sets out the minimum and maximum period of sentence leaving it with the prison authorities to retain the offender in jail only for the optimum period until he is reformed and responds favourably to rehabilitative process.

It hardly needs to be stressed that mechanical apportionment of punishment to guilt would serve no useful purpose in the modern context. The correct approach to the problem of sentencing has been rightly expressed by James Mills in his celebrated article in Encyclopaedia Britannica wherein he stated that “whatever punishment is to be inflicted, it should be determined by its adaptation to crime. The progressive trends in penology in form of probation, parole, indeterminate sentence etc. should not lose sight of this fundamental principle of penal law.

Finally, it must be stated that the ultimate justification of all sentencing is the protection of society and rehabilitation of the offender. At times, a prolonged confinement of offender may be necessary in the interest of society’s protection and no rehabilitative technique may suit the offender in view of his anti-social behaviour. In such cases, definite sentencing alone seems to be the only viable alternative. Even in cases where there is probability of the offender responding favourably to flexible sentencing, the problem to determine the appropriate time of release may pose real difficulty. Therefore, theoretically the technique of indeterminate sentence may appear to be ideal one, but the risk of arbitrary discretion of the prison authorities involved in it, may frustrate the benevolent principle underlying this mode of sentencing.

The principle of justice demands that the like cases be treated alike. As H. L.A. Hart rightly contended. “Injustice arises when equals are treated unequally and also when unequals are treated equally.” Disparity in sentences defeats the object of modern correctional penology. In India, the provisions relating to appeal, revision as well as hearing on the point of sentence tinder Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are meant to mitigate the disparity in sentences as far as possible.

In the ultimate analysis it may be stated that whatever be the mode or pattern of sentencing, its object should be protection of society and stamping out the criminal proclivity. In choosing the mode of sentence, the sentencing authorities should adopt corrective machinery or the deterrence, based on factual matrix and its import on social order. Any undue leniency in choosing any particular form of sentencing will be result wise counter- productive in the long run and against societal interest.