Punishment to punish or to reform

What is the role of law, criminal law more particularly. There are many theories that try to answer it. The punitive theory or the retributive theory of justice; the deterrent or preventive theory and the reformative or corrective theory all come out with different rationales for punishment or the lack of it. The recent re-arrest of the octageunarian Montana's notorious killer Frank Dryman raises some difficult questions. In a cold and snowy day in 1951 Dryman hitch hiked from Shelby by cafe owner Clarence Pellet and suddenly pulled out a gun and threw Clarence from out of his own car. Coldbloddedly he shot Pellet six times in the back. He avoided the hangman's noose, a relic of frontier justice. Decades later, the accussed a reformed human now was caught and sent back to gallows on charge of breaking the law by running away while on parole. Traced down in a Bollywood style by the The problem raises the dilemma if Frank should be punished for breaking the court's order and not completing his prison sentence then.

Criminal Jurists have different theories justifying each of their standpoints and each of them convincing enough their viewpoint.

Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth and foot for foot is the essence of retributive theory of justice.The theory suggests that punishment if appropriate is a morally acceptable response to crime. It brings that psychological solace of revenge to the aggrieved party, its near ones and society. Also referred to as the punitive model of justice, it seeks to punish rather then focus on the reform of the accused.

The restorative theory instead of focussing on the abstract principles of law, justice and ethics; focusses on the needs of both the parties - the accused and the victim. It endeavours to encourage offenders to repair the harm done by them by apologizing, returning stolen money or for example doing community service'. It involves fostering a dialogue between the accused and victim and reaching a consensus wherein the ends of justice are met in a practical manner. Though this might be a good manner of resolving petty crimes such as theft or breaking traffic rules, as is increasingly been done in the developed countries; restorative model can not be acceptable for resolving henious crimes such as murder, rape or genocide which are a crime against society. The restorative theory is based on the principle of corrective theory. This is because the whole purpose of punishment is to reform the individual. Individuals turn to crime due to inadequacies in society and once they are provided the right set of environment and an opportunity to integrate into the society, they tend to reform and become better human beings. Reform, Rehabilitate, Re-educate and reintegration are the four R's of the restorative theory.

Accroding to the deterrent theory, the punishment is permissible so far as it deters further performance of a greater criminal act. The underlying principle is to set the punishment as an example such that it deters the accused and other like-minded individuals from committing a similar or more heinous crime. When such a punishment is set as a precedent, it sets an example for the society to abide by the law.

Frank not only cold-blodeedly killed the person who gave him a hitch, but also evaded from the eyes of law for four long decades before he was traced by victim's grand-son. In such a reckless case, the issue becomes not just one of punishing the individual who committed a cold-blodded murder; but also of meeting the ends of justice by appropriately punishing him for committing contempt of justice. Letting a person go free on humanitarian grounds of his being an octagenarian would be justified only if Frank sincerely repent for his wrong deeds. Any thoughts on the sensitive issue that touches us all as members of the society?