Abstract

In rape cases, the sentencing procedure plays a pivotal role in delivering justice and deterring the future offenders to commit the crime again. After the high-profile cases like that of Nirbhaya and Kathua, incidents such as these introduced the harsher punishments in order to make a deterrence effect. However, whether these harsh punishments was able to make any difference in the recidivism rates still remains doubtful. The public outrage and the involvement of media demands stricter punishments for the offender but the lack of structured guidelines results in the inconsistent judgments and erodes the public trust in the criminal justice administration. Judicial discretion is an important aspect that helps in giving tailored judgments but excessive reliability on this results in the unpredictable sentencing patterns. This paper critically examines the limitations of giving harsher punishments, arguing that they do not necessarily prevent reoffending. The procedural delays that can be seen in the case of Nirbhaya further weakens the impact of punishments, eroding victim’s faith in the system. The research highlights the need for reforms such as the structured sentencing guidelines in order to reduce the arbitrariness in the judgments, fast-track courts for timely justice and greater participation of the victim in the sentencing process. The paper also highlights the importance of counselling and rehabilitation in order to reduce the rate of reoffending. In the end the paper argues that while strict punishments may satisfy the public opinion and media but they are not sufficient as an independent measure. Ensuring the certainty of punishments and improving the rates of convictions are essential for an effective criminal justice administration.

Keywords