U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Treatment of Dangerous or Habitual Offenders (From UNAFEI-Resource Material Series, Number 17, 1980, P 40-45, Yoshio Suzuki, ed. See NCJ-74759)

NCJ Number
74762
Author(s)
B N Bahadur
Date Published
1980
Length
6 pages
Annotation
Legal provisions at the central and local government level, as well as the primary features of institutional and community-based programs for dealing with dangerous offenders in India, are described.
Abstract
The revocation in 1952 of the Criminal Tribes Act of 1924 by the Indian government ended the segregation and labeling of certain tribes as prone to criminal behavior. However, section 110 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins individuals with past chronic criminal records to execute bonds to the court for their good behavior before being returned to the community. Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 also provides for additional punishment to habitual and dangerous offenders for certain types of offenses after previous conviction. Police laws of local states allow for the prohibition of previously convinced criminals and gangs from certain areas in order to control specific crimes endemic to specific areas. Local prison manuals generally follow the seven main criteria laid down in the Indian Model Prison Manual for the identification and classification of habitual criminals. Institutional treatment programs for dangerous offenders, which are tailored according to individual educational and vocational needs, also provide for disciplinary measures for disorderly behavior. For example, segregation of dangerous offenders is occasionally adopted to avoid incitement to riot in the general prison population. Experimental community-based programs for dangerous offenders have resulted in 1) phased programs from maximum security to free living conditions; 2) selective participation in the social and economic life of the outside community; 3) open prisons; and 4) liberalized provisions for parole, furloughs, and remission of sentence. In conclusion, the desirability of deinstitutionalized corrections programs and of traditional prisons for certain classes of offenders are both reaffirmed.