Foundation of Law

Dr.
Ram ManoharLohia National Law University --- Foundation of Law---Final Draft

1

DR. RAM MAHOHAR LOHIYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Retributive theory and its relevance in Modern world and India

SUBMITTED BY: UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:
ANJANAY PANDEY MR. MANWENDRA KUMAR
TIWARI
ROLL NO: 29 FACULTY OF LAW
SECTION A DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA
B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER I NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
SIGNATURE OF STUDENT SIGNATURE OF PROFESSOR

Dr. Ram ManoharLohia National Law University --- Foundation of Law---Final Draft

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude towards all those whose help and constant support the
project would not have reached its current facet. I would take advantage of this situation to
thank my parents and my guardians without whose constant support and guidance, I really
owe it a lot to them.
However, foremost I would like to thank Manwendra Sir for his kind guidance and for
quenching my queries on many doubts and technicalities which I came up during the making
of this project; this project would not have seen the light of the day without his constant
direction and guidance.
I would also like to thank all of my friends and seniors who aided me along the way. I must
also extend my gratitude to the library and library personnel who provided me with research
material and good books to work upon.


3

Serial
Number
Topics Page Number
1 Introduction 4
2 Punishment 4
3 Retribution 5
4 Historical Basis 6
5 Lex Talionis 7
6 Retribution in Modern and recent Past 8
7 Just Deserts 9
8 Victim Centric Approach 9
9 Its stand on Death Penalty 10
10 Modern opposition in India 11
11 Criticism 14
12 Concluding Remarks 14
13 Bibliography 15


4

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind- Mahatma Gandhi
Introduction-
Retributive theory is a theory which comes under penology. This theory seeks to give an
explanation for the infliction of punishment upon a wrongdoer so as to justify the very act of
giving punishment. This theory is probably one of the oldest theories of the world in
penology and it has basically two constituents or parts namely- Lex talionis
1
and the theory of
Just Deserts
2
. It essentially implies that the culprit, if his crime be proven, will be subjected to
the same act as a punishment. It is probably the oldest theory of punishment; the term itself
implies that this theory aims to exact vengeance upon the culprit and aims at taking revenge
for the victim of society as a whole.
Retributive justice is way of ensuring justice by giving such a punishment which is equal to
or proportional with the criminal act committed. It requires that for each wrong committed,
there has to be a corresponding punishment which is proportionate to the harm inflicted, if a
punishment is too severe or too light, justice has not been fully achieved
3
.

Punishment-
Punishment in criminal law essentially implies is a sentence passed upon the conviction of
person following his guilt is proven. Punishment is a universal phenomenon
4
. No society
confronted with the infringements of its regulations leaves itself powerless to impose
sanctions. Crime is an act of an individual which incurs a formal and solemn pronouncement
of moral condemnation of the community and the society
5
.
While advocating retributivism, retributionist supporters suggest a system of tariffs wherein,
a set of punishments are given, varying in degree of severity but nevertheless proportional to
the crime committed
6
. Punishment for a crime is quite essential in a society as it reinforces
the ideas of acceptable and unacceptable behavior of the people in a society. Retributionist in
the modern era hold that society has provided rights to all, if a person violates the right of
another by committing a crime; it is the responsibility of the society to ensure that a

1
Law of Talon.
2
The principle of proportionality of punishment with the act committed.
3
Phelps, Shirelle(2002) World of Criminal Justice p. 423.
4
Townsend, Chistopher(1997) An eye for an eye? The morality of punishment p.1.
5
Tonry, Michael (2011), Why Punish? How much? p.113.
6
Cavadino, Michael and Dignam James (2007), The Penal System, p. 44.

5

punishment follows such an act, because without this there would be no rights. By punishing
the criminal we are reaffirming the rights of those who live in the society
7
.
Retribution
The term retribution does not imply severe and excessive punishment, though this is not the
case as the word itself comes from the Latin word ribuere which means to give back or to
repay
8
. It seeks to give the criminal that which he deserves
9
. It is basically a backward
looking approach towards dealing with criminals wherein the act of the criminal and its
seriousness are far more important concerns than the rehabilitation of the victim or the future
state. Retribution is backward looking because while other theories seek the future
consequences of the criminal act committed, retribution looks backwards in time for the
criminal act committed
10
. Retribution demands that criminals punishments match the degree
of harm they have inflected on their victims; this is the most honestly stated justification for
punishment because it both taps into our primal urges and posits no secondary purpose for it,
such as the reform of the criminal
11
.
The theory seeks to punish the wrongdoer in the same manner as he committed the crime
thereby seeking to repay him in the same manner as he committed the crime. It also seeks to
provide some amount of respite to the victims of the crime. It argues that the punishment
imposed is punishment because it is deserved. Lethal and non-lethal sanctions, blood-feuds
between families, range wars in agrarian communities, terrorist attacks on civilian and
government targets, and most popular, the acts of street justice practiced by vigilante
groups and other extra-judicial bodies are often fueled by the twin motives of revenge and
retribution
12
.
The desire to punish the wrongdoer is deep set in our brains. We feel a certain kind of
pleasure in punishing a culprit, it seems that a desire to get even is deeply ingrained in our
minds and more often than not, we are motivated by our primal urges to punish an individual
rather than any other motive. This theory therefore gains ground when it addresses one of the
basic urges of man, his desire to get even and exact rightful vengeance. However despite

7
Shlomo, Beck and Kett (2008), International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice, p.385.
8
Amatrudo, Antony(2009) Criminology and political theory,p.67.
9
Walker, N. (1991) Why punish p.67.
10
Cavadino, Michael and Dignam James (2007), The Penal System, p. 44.
11
Walsh, Antony, Yun, Ilhong(2011) Critical issues in Crime and Justice: Thought, policy and practice, p. 300.
12
Miethe, Terrence D.; Lu, Hong(2005) Punishment A comparative historical perspective, p 16.

6

this urge being rather primal to human brains, we cannot simply give free reins to those who
have been, or think that they have been, wronged. Therefore the need for existence of some
authority or state with sufficient sanctions to impose punishment on wrongdoers is felt to
achieve this purpose and quell the collective desire and anger in masses to see justice being
delivered.
Historical basis-
This theory is probably one the oldest theories in the world which deals with crime and
punishment. We have evidences of it being followed in principle and in fact in several of the
ancient and medieval societies going as back as the Code of Hammurabi to the more common
examples such as the Sermon of the mounts and the Babylonian and Assyrian laws. This
region is famous its laws which due to invention of writing could be written on mud tablets
and later preserved for the posterity. Due to such characteristics it was possible for them to
record almost all the aspects of life wherein record-keeping was necessary and convenient.
Among those things were laws, which were written on stone tablets and later either kept with
the jurists and judges or displayed publicly for all to see. The first set of written laws can be
found in the code of a Sumerian ruler named Ur-Nammu near about 2050 B.C. Even the
crimes of people were also recorded; an example of the first known and recorded murder was
that of a temple worker in Mesopotamia. Three people were charged and due to the testimony
of the eye-witnesses, they were put to death.
The Code of Hammurabi was the first one to contain the principle of An eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth and a hand for a hand.
The old Judeo-Christian while advocating the idea of an eye for an eye, did not give any or
little consideration to the culpability of the offender or the preventive role of the punishment
to deter the potential criminals. Rather, the punishment is justified on its own ground i.e. on
the very fact of its commission. The old belief that the expression of an eye for an eye in the
Bible was supposed to advocate on behalf of cruel and excessive retributive theory is also
wrong as the Jews intended it as a safeguard from the highly oppressive punishments
prevalent at that time
13
. This view of early Judeo-Christian times also has some religious
connotations as it offers a divine justification of retributive sanctions. The view of people that

13
Ramnaresh Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1974) 3 SCC 380.

7

an entity called god is watching all of their acts and will punish them according to their acts
was one that resonated well with the masses.
Lex Talionis
If Retribution were swift and certain and the lawless man paid with his life, there would be
fewer villains
14

Lex Talionis is simply the rule of retaliation rather than a rule of modern retribution. It seeks
to quench the revenge in the aggrieved party rather than provide justice. There is distinction
between both of them, i.e. revenge is taken on behalf of the aggrieved party for the loss and
pain they suffered because of the act whereas when we talk about retribution, we mean
proportionality in a broader way in which we seek justification for the punishment inflicted
upon the principle of justice and not on the part of the victim rather on the part of the whole
society in general. The law of equal retaliation codified the natural inclination of individuals
to seek revenge upon being harmed by another, however is often very uncontrolled and
vengeful as that of the grieving person himself afflicted with the harm
15
.
Another striking feature of Lex Talionis is that was prevalent in those societies which were
not having much diversity and wherein it was easy to ascertain the guilt of the person due to
small population and well knit communities wherein the level of social interaction was more.
May be this is the reason of the emphatic pronunciation of punishments so as to deter others
to do a similar act. Thus it has many features common with the deterrence model of justice.
Along with being present in the dictums of Babylonian laws especially the much discussed
Code of Hammurabi, this law also finds mention is Judeo-Christian traditions especially the
Mosaic laws and the early Christian traditions of punishment which were heavily influenced
with those of Jewish ones. Even those thoughts which were mildly analogous like those of
Early Roman and to some extent even the Sharia Laws have some retaliatory principles in
them. The pre-Islamic laws incorporated the retaliatory punishment under the realm of
religious duty and right.

14
Sophocles, Electra, p. 153.
15

8

The corporal punishments under various laws also need a special mention, since they widely
thought to be part of retributionist thought and manifest themselves in those countries where
Sharia laws are applied. Since Corporal punishments involve the infliction of pain on the
human body, the idea that the pain should be synonymous to that of the victim is an idea
which resonates strongly with this thought. Maybe that is the reason for infliction of Death
Penalty upon the act of murder. Many cultures justify the retributive usage of the corporal
punishment when inflicted in form of mutilations of some body part (A thiefs hands, a sex
offenders genitals and the tongue of a liar/perjurer), however it is more closer to the
deterrence principle rather than retributive one.
Retribution in Modern and recent Past-
In the recent past i.e. in the late 50s, 60s and early 70s, newer forms of retribution started
gaining ground. Mainly due to the inability of other theories, such as deterrence and
rehabilitative, to effectuate a reduction in crime, philosophers have reexamined retribution as
a viable justification for punishment
16
.They were not hell bent on the idea of blindly
following the old dictum which was unequivocally followed in the olden times. The principle
of punishment being proportional and not equal to the act committed was adopted. Another
significant change which was sweeping to this theorys modern advent was the fact that it
started taking the culprits own situation while determining the punishment. The principle of
punishment was modified in the neoclassical thought to recognize that some offenders maybe
less blameworthy or culpable due to factors outside their control (diminished capacity, mental
capacity and immaturity)
17
. Some of us may consider retribution to be simply vindictive in
nature and a simple manifestation of the primitive revenge and subsequently morally wrong,
but retribution as presently conceived is constrained revenge, curbed by proportionality and
imposed by neutral parties bound by laws mandating respect for the rights of the individuals
against whom it is imposed.
18

A recent development in the field of retributive theory is the principle of Just Desserts.

16
Lewis, C.S., (1970), The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment as cited in Starkweather, David A.,(1992) The
theory of Just Desserts and victim participation in Plea Bargaining, p. 2.
17
Miethe, Terrence D.; Lu, Hong(2005) Punishment A comparative historical perspective, p 16.
18

9

Just Deserts-
Retribution came in a new form in the form of the theory of Just Deserts. Just Deserts is an
old English word with possibly French origins to mean the situation in which a person gets
what he deserves. This idea of proportionality of the criminal act and the punishment inflicted
is one that resonates strongly with this theory. Synonymous to this theory is the idea of the
Justice system, which is prevalent in United States wherein the punishment is given to restore
the values of justice and not to achieve any other means. This model avers that it is right to
punish criminals, regardless of any secondary purpose that punishment may serve simply
because justice demands it
19
. In this model many of the contentions with the previous model
of Lex Talionis, rather than the being the recipient of the revenge by the aggrieved party, the
offender is a victim of just deserts. Thus the contention of being overtly based on retaliatory
principles is absolved. Another significant point is that unlike Lex Talionis, this principle is
largely neutral and is subject various restriction unlike Lex talionis, in which the retaliation
might be altogether disproportionate and extremely cruel. Also, only the offender gets
punished however in retaliation, even those who are viewed as being responsible for the act
(Eg. parents, friends and family members etc.) may also be inflicted with the punishment.

Victim Centric Approach-
One of the most commonly forwarded justifications for a theory like retribution is that it
provides solace and relief to the victim of the crime. While the notion of punishing the culprit
with righteous indignation and the proportionality of the punishment to the act committed are
some of the most intrinsic principle while deciding any punishment by a common individual,
their specific emphasis by this theory makes it one of the favorites of aggrieved masses. Even
the masses reaction towards any act which according to them deserves vehement and
deplorable response is usually more in tune with deterrence, yet due to some lack of clarity,
both of theories work in tandem for the masses. The aggressive responses by the extrajudicial
bodies and mobs which are aggrieved often carry connotations of deterrence and exemplary
justice with the element of solidarity and compassion for the victim of such heinous crimes.
As seen earlier, this theory seems to provide the victim of the crime which all the other
theories cannot i.e. solace and assurance that the culprit will be prosecuted according to the

19

10

act which he had committed. Retribution demands that criminals punishments match the
degree of harm they have inflected on their victims; this is the most honestly stated
justification for punishment because it both taps into our primal urges and posits no
secondary purpose for it, such as the reform of the criminal
20
. In fact one of factors majorly
responsible for the emergence of this theory in the late 70s was that other theories failed to
effectuate the reduction in crime. By holding criminals responsible for their actions we are
treating them as free moral agents and not as mindless rag dolls blown around by capricious
winds of the environment
21
.
The state and the society in general are depicted as those who have been affected by the act of
the criminal. Probable reasons for this effect might lie in the earlier facet of retribution i.e.
Lex Talionis, wherein emphasis was laid on the retaliation of the crime and to placate the
aggrieved victim. The criminal is often viewed with righteous indignation for committing an
act so base and therefore is punished on behalf of the society and not on the behalf of he who
had been wronged. In case of heinous and serious crimes, however the punishment is inflicted
bearing in mind the deterrent principle of punishment rather than that of retribution.

Its Stand on Death Penalty-
Whosoever sheddeth another mans blood, let his blood be shed
22

As has been mentioned, the idea of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is often used to
summarize the crux of theory of retribution and this idea of repaying and taking retribution
on the account of the crime committed. A simplistic view emerges, that of that it is cruel and
insensitive towards the whole penal process and dealt questionable and oppressive justice fit
to be dealt in the dark ages. Since the punishment was meted out following the principles of
retribution, the deluded thought of modern masses gains ground that it was more or less in
reckless disregard with the human life. However the principle of punishing an act according
to its severity is not as simple as it seems and has to take in many considerations.
Immanuel Kant while speaking on the law of Retaliation said, If you strike another, you
strike yourself, if you kill another, you kill yourself. Kants views on awarding death penalty

20
21
22
Genesis 9:3, Bible, The old testament .

11

could be any clearer. He has without any reservations pointed out that if a man kills a man,
the only punishment he could get is that of death. He has not mentioned any mitigating
factors, nor any considerations, reservations etc to be taken into account while deciding the
matter. The individual simply deserves the capital punishment since in the words of Kant,
there is no juridical substitute or surrogate for the satisfaction of justice, there is no equality
between the crime of murder and the retaliation of it but the execution of the criminal itself.
In the olden days, in the infancy of this theory, the primary objective of this theory being
completely in tune with the crimes committed was actually a way to put an end to the
barbaric and rather inhuman acts which awarded even the simplest acts with grave and often
life threatening punishments. The death sentences themselves were not easy and a plethora of
new devices and techniques were used to make the suffering of the person dying rather
unbearable and often a grand spectacle. The bloodlust and the lack of sympathy towards the
offenders and the taboo associated with them often influenced the nature of punishment being
meted out.
Supporters of death penalty heartily agree with the view of inflicting death penalty as a
retributive act and argue that death penalty is crucially symbolic in expressing the strongest
possible moral outrage over the vicious and unlawful taking of human life
23

Modern Opposition in India-
God alone can take it,
Because he alone gives it
24

Modern and relatively modern outlook in India towards this theory of retribution is actually
negative in many ways. Many acts and judgments can actually be cited as preferring the later
versions of punishment theory. In case of Ramnaresh Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
25
and in the case of Jugal Prasad Kishore vs. State of Bihar
26
, the court said and later
affirmed that the Probation of offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a view to provide for
the release offenders of certain categories on probation or after due admonition. It is also
subjected to prevent youthful offenders from turning into obdurate criminals as a result of

23
Shelley, Joseph F. (2000), Criminology, p. 636.
24
(1979) 3 SCC 646,Note- Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer quoting Mahatma Gandhis lines in Harijan in the case of
Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
25
(1974)3 SCC 380.
26
(1972) 2 SCC 633.

12

their continued association with hardened criminals during their prison sentence. This thought
is more in line with reformatory theory rather than retributive. In Bishnu Deo Shaw vs. State
of Bengal
27
, renounced the ethos behind Retributive theory and said that it is incongruous in
an era of enlightenment and said that it is inadequate as a theory as it does not showcase any
beneficial effects to the society or the person punished. Even while hearing the plea of the
minor accused in the much discussed case of Delhi gang-rape, the judge while declaring that
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, emphasized it being
restorative and not retributive and that there is scope of betterment of those who are under the
legal to improve and not become hardened criminals in future
28
.
The courts through its decisions have often touted an anti-retributive stance. The judges have
often held a very glum and negative view about the theory often labeling it backward and
rather primitive. Some have taken a view that retributive justice should be relegated to the
uncivilized days
29
. In another case, the court held the view that the concept of vengeance
against the wrongdoer is a thing of past and that we have travelled far ahead from the days
when retributive justice was considered as a fit recourse
30
.
Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Shiv Mohan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration)
31

has opined that Deterrent and retributive theorists still prevail in penologists and the
principle of Lex talionis still continues in sublimated form. He has further elaborated his
stand on death penalty and more or less as a punishment against violent and reprehensible
crimes as such-Death is not only unusually severe punishment, unusual in its enormity, in its
finality, but it no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment therefore the
principle inherent in the clause that prohibits pointless infliction of severe punishment when
less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purpose invalidates the
punishment
32
. Giving weight to his stand he quoted Mr. Justice Marshall-

The two purposes that sustain death penalty as non-excessive in the courts view are
general deterrence and retribution,
the other principal purpose said to be served by the death penalty is retribution. The
notion that retribution can serve as a moral justification for the sanction of death finds
credence in the opinion of my brothers Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, and that of my
brother White in Roberts v. Louisiana. It is this notion that I find to be the most
disturbing aspect of to-day's unfortunate decision.
The foregoing contentions that society's expression of moral outrage through the
imposition of the death penalty pre-empts the citizenry from taking the law into its own

27
(1979) 3 SCC 714.
28
Salil Bali vs. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705.
29
Union of India vs. Charanjit Gill, (2000) 5 SCC 742 p. 751.
30
State of Maharashtra vs. Mohammed Yusuf Noormohammed (1990) SCConline Bom 89 p. 823.
31
(1977) 2 SCC 238.
32
Shiv Mohan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1977) 2 SCC 238, p. 243,244.

13

hands and reinforces moral values are not retributive in the pures sense. They are
essentially utilitarian in that they portray the death penalty as valuable because of its
beneficial results. These justifications for the death penalty are inadequate because the
penalty is, quite clearly I think, not necessary to the accomplishment of those results.
There remains for consideration, however, what might be termed the purely
retributive justification for the death penalty that the death penalty is appropriate not
because of its beneficial effect on society, but because the taking of the murderer's life is
itself morally good. Some of the language of the plurality's opinion appears positively to
embrace this notion of retribution for its own sake as a justification for capital
punishment.
33

The court in the case of Chawla vs. State of Harayana
34
has reiterated that even though for
murder there are only two punishments under IPC, i.e. death penalty or life imprisonment, the
court only awards death penalty in the cases wherein the culprit shows marked brutality. The
courts also focus on the mitigating factors such as the delay in sorting the trial and the effect
it tolls on that persons mental and psychological state. Justice Sarkaria, while commuting the
death sentence further said that Draconian notions and retributive relics of Lex Talionis are
yielding to Mankinds concern for charity.

In the case of V. Venkataswara Reddy v. State of W.B.
35
Justice Kanwaljit Ahluwalia quoted some
lines of a book- Among the three alternatives, the retributive, the deterrent and the
rehabilitative, modern penologists opt for the last with a sprinkling of the second. To be
retributive is to claim an eye for an eye and, logically, a murder for a murder, a rape for a
rape, a reprisal barbarity for brutal burglary and so on. Soothing the sadist, heartening to the
little Hitler lingering in many bosoms, this form of blood-thirsty justice, which still is
prevalent in a few countries, has become obsolete, what with the dignity and worth of the
human person receiving better recognition in civilized societies responsive to the new
international legal order. Not quite dead is Lex talionis, as is evident from the lively
controversy about death penalty
36

Voicing the views of most jurists in India, Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Edigga
Anamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
37
, The final position, as we see it, is neither with the
absolute abolitionist nor with the Mosaic retributionist. It is relativist, and humanist, conditioned by
the sense of justice and prevailing situation of the given society. In contemporary India, the via
media of legal deprivation of life being the exception and long deprivation of liberty the rule
fits the social mood and realities and the direction of the penal and processual laws.
38

33
Shiv Mohan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), p. 244
34
(1974) 4 SCC 579.
35
(2013) 1 CHN 519.
36
Dr. Ashutosh, Rights of Accussed ac cited in (2013) 1 CHN 519, p no 524 and 525.
37
(1974) 4 SCC 443.
38
(1974) 4 SCC 443, p. 453.

14

Criticism
One of the significant point which comes up in opposition of Retributive principles is that is
largely a state-sponsored vendetta. This statement might be true in the bygone era wherein its
inherent nature was such, However during modern times; it is subject to many regulations
and largely neutral in its approach.
Another criticism is that it is inapplicable in modern societies mainly due to its religious
connotations and early ear of genesis. However, a significant point is that since it envisions
through its approach an egalitarian society wherein everyones rights are equal therefore the
very nature of this applicability renders it as a misfit during the modern times wherin the
society is marred by inequality in the status and in applicability of laws. Personal opinions
and caprices might play some role in the process of justice dispensation.
However the most significant point of criticism of Retributive principles is that they have
limited applicability. Retribution may succeed in doling out punishments for some common
offences but how can any society determine the proportional punishments of many crimes
which do not harm anyone and are against the moral grain of the society such as adultery,
prostitution, economic harm or even trivial crimes like over-speeding and traffic violations.
Critics also argue that the model of Just deserts lacks any principled basis for determining
commensurate sentences
39
.
The most significant allegation on this theory is that it is rather mechanical in its approach.
It does not give any consideration on the part of the offender, neither does it take into account
any mitigating circumstances, it simply delivers its interpretation of justice. There are other
concerns like the social setting, the circumstantial events and the state and mentality of the
offender which it simply chooses to ignore or give less weightage, which make the justice
dispensed through this method rather cold and mechanic to the verge of being unjust.
Concluding Remarks-
We have observed this theory in relative detail. We can conclude that it is mainly a theory
which evolved and was implemented mostly in the western world. This theory being cold and
mechanical has many plenty of attributes which render a lot of holistic and positivist thinkers

39

15

to be against this theory. Also, there is an inherent dislike of most of the people in society
towards this theory mainly because of their misconceptions. This theory has evolved a lot,
from being a retaliatory measure used to silence and satisfy the vengeful desires of the
society to being a system based on neutrality and proportionality. India mainly due to its
holistic passions and its somewhat lacking sense of retribution has always taken a negative
stance for this theory. In modern application of Just Deserts and Justice model in the western
world and specially in America has replaced the utilitarian models which existed before them.
The same cannot be replicated in India because of vast diversity, holistic and reformatory
concerns and anti-retributive opinion.

Bibliography-
Walsh, Antony, Yun, Ilhong(2011) Critical issues in Crime and Justice: Thought,
policy and practice
Shelley, Joseph F. (2000), Criminology
Starkweather, David A.,(1992) The theory of Just Desserts and victim participation in
Plea Bargaining
Miethe, Terrence D.; Lu, Hong(2005) Punishment A comparative historical
perspective
Phelps, Shirelle(2002) World of Criminal Justice
Townsend, Chistopher(1997) An eye for an eye? The morality of punishment
Tonry, Michael (2011), Why Punish? How much?
Cavadino, Michael and Dignam James (2007), The Penal System
Shlomo, Beck and Kett (2008), International Handbook of Penology and Criminal
Justice
SCC Online
Westlaw
All India Reporter


16

Foundation of Law

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Foundation of Law

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dr.

Ram ManoharLohia National Law University --- Foundation of Law---Final Draft

Вам также может понравиться