What is administration of justice?

Administration means management and justice means to right and equitable implication. By the
administration of justice is meant the maintenance of right with in a political community by
means of the physical force of the state. For sound administration of justice, physical force of the
state is prime requirement. There are two essential functions of every State: 1. War, 2.
Administration of Justice
According to Salmond, a state with reference to its territory as a society of men established for
the maintenance of order and justice within a determined territory by way of force. State
maintain law and order and establish peace and social security. If state failed to maintain the law
and order it can’t be called state. The main function of the administration of justice is the
protection of individuals' rights, enforcement of laws and punishment of criminals.
Necessity
A man by nature is a fighting animal and is moved by his own interest and passions. So without a
common power to keep him right on track in the society, it is very difficult for individuals to live
peacefully in a society. A society where the state power is never called into actual exercise, it is
very difficult to attain the civilization in the society.
Origin and Growth of the Administration of Justice
It is the social nature of men that inspires him to live in a community. This social nature of men
demands that he must reside in a society. However, living in a society leads to conflict of
interests and gives rise to the need for Administration of Justice. they involved their elders to
settle disputes among them. There we see developments of minds, starts from natural society to
developed and civilized society this is considered to be the historical basis for the growth of
administration of justice.
Once the need for Administration of Justice was recognized, the State came into being. Initially,
the so called State was not strong enough to regulate crime and impart punishment to the
criminals. But at present it is operated by Magistrates and Judges assigned with the same nature
of job.
According to Hobbes “that a common power is necessary to keep people with in control in the
community. He says, unless man is under “a common power to keep them all in awe”
Advantages
# Administration of justice brings uniformity and consistency in the law and it causes a
systematic development of law.
# The Rules of law represent the collective wisdom of community therefore, in following them
there are little chances of going wrong. Sir Edward Coke said that the wisdom of law is wiser
than any man’s wisdom and Justice represents wisdom of the community.
# As the rules are fixed, it helps judge in applying the law uniformly.
# As the law is known to the citizen, it enables them to regulate their conduct in accordance with
it.
Disadvantages
# It is rigid. The rate of change in the society is always more rapid than the rate of change in the
Legal Justice.
# Legal Justice is full of technicalities and formalities.
# Legal Justice is complex. Our society is complex too. Thus, to meet the needs of the society,
we need complex laws.
# Salmond said that ‘law is without doubt a remedy for greater evils yet it brings with it evils of
its own’.
Types of Administration of law
There are two types of justice, Civil and Criminal. Which means there are two types of wrongs,
civil wrongs and criminal wrongs. Criminal wrongs are Public wrongs while civil wrongs are
private wrongs.
Civil justice - The main object of the administration of civil justice is to provide relief by way of
compensation or other relief to the injured party. The rights enforced by civil proceedings are of
two kinds- Primary rights and Sanctioning rights.
Criminal Justice- The administration of criminal justice is to punish the offender. Punishment
may be described as the infliction by State Authority, of a consequence normally regarded as an
evil (imprisonment or death) on an individual found to be legally guilty of a crime. .
Theories of Punishment
Administration of Justice is the primary functions of the State, is generally divided into
administration of Civil Justice and Administration of Criminal Justice. The main purpose of
Administration of criminal Justice is to punish the wrongdoer. It is the State which punishes the
Criminals. From the ancient times, a number of theories have been given concerning the purpose
of punishment.
What is Punishment?
Punishment is a process by which the state inflicts some pain to the persons or property of person
who is found guilty of Crime.
Deterrent Theory-
Salmond said that the deterrent aspect of punishment is extremely important. The object of
punishment is not only to prevent the Evildoer from committing the crime again but also to make
him an example in front of the other such persons who have similar criminal tendencies.
Even in Manu Smriti, the Deterrent Theory is mentioned. Manu said “Penalty keeps the people
under control, penalty protects them, and penalty remains awake when people are asleep, so the
wise have regarded punishment as the source of righteousness”.
Criticism:
There is a lot of criticism of the deterrent theory of punishment in modern times. It has been
criticized on the grounds that it has proved ineffective in checking crimes and also that excessive
harshness of punishment tends to defeat its own purpose by arousing the sympathy of the public
towards those who are given cruel and inhuman punishment. Hardened criminals are not afraid
of punishment. Punishment losses its horror once the criminal is punished.
Preventive Theory
This theory believes that the object of punishment is to prevent or disable the wrongdoer from
committing the crime again. Deterrent theory aims at giving a warning to the society at large
whereas under Preventive Theory, the main aim is to disable the wrongdoer from repeating the
criminal activity by disabling his physical power to commit crime.
The supporters of this theory recognize imprisonment as the best mode of punishment because it
serves as an effective deterrent as also a useful preventive measure. According to Paton: “The
Preventive theory concentrates on the prisoner and seeks to prevent him from offending again in
the future. The death penalty and exile serve the same purpose.
Criticism
Critics points out that Preventative Punishment has the undesirable effect of hardening first
offenders, or juvenile offenders, when imprisonment is the punishment, by putting them in the
association of Harden Criminals.
Reformative Theory
This theory believes that Punishment should exist to reform the criminal. Even if an offender
commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being. He might have committed the crime
under circumstances which might never occur again.
The object of the punishment should be reform the offender. The criminal must be educated and
taught some art or craft or industry during his term of imprisonment, so that they may be able to
lead a good life and become a responsible and respectable citizen after release from jail.
Criticism
Critics of this theory state that if Criminals are sent to prison to be transformed into good
citizens, a prison will no longer be a 'prison' but a dwelling house.
This theory has been proved to be successful in case of young offenders.
Retributive Theory
In primitive societies, the punishment was mostly retributive in nature and the person wronged
was allowed to have his revenge against the wrongdoer. The principle was “an eye for an eye”.
According to Justice Holmes It is commonly known that the early forms of legal procedure were
grounded in vengeance.
According to Sir John Salmond the retributive purpose of punishment consist in avenging the
wrong done by the criminal to society.
Criticism
Critics of retributive theory points out that punishment per se is not a remedy for the mischief
committed by the offender. It merely aggravates the mischief. Punishment in itself evil and can
be justified only on the ground that it yields better result. Revenge is wild justice. Retribution is
only a subsidiary purpose served by punishment.
Theory of Compensation
This theory believes that punishment should not only be to prevent further crime but it should
also exist to compensate the victim who has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer. However,
critics say that this theory is not effective in checking the rate of crime. This is because the
purpose behind committing a crime is always economic in nature. Asking the wrongdoer to
compensate the victim will not always lower the rate of crime though it might prove beneficial to
the victim.