 be applied on moral, especially religious, grounds, as in penance (which is voluntary) or imposed in a theocracy with a religious police (as in a strict Islamic state like Iran or under the Taliban) or (though not a true theocracy) by Inquisition.

History and rationale

The progress of civilization has resulted in a change alike in the theory and in the method of punishment. In primitive society punishment was left to the individuals wronged or their families, and was vindictive or retributive: in quantity and quality it would bear no special relation to the character or gravity of the offense[citation needed].

Gradually there would arise the idea of proportionate punishment, of which the characteristic type is an eye for an eye. The second stage was punishment by individuals under the control of the state, or community[citation needed]; in the third stage, with the growth of law, the state took over the primitive function and provided itself with the machinery of justice for the maintenance of public order[citation needed]. Henceforward crimes are against the state, and the exaction of punishment by the wronged individual is illegal (compare Lynch Law).

Even at this stage the vindictive or retributive character of punishment remains, but gradually, and specially after the humanist movement under thinkers like Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, new theories begin to emerge. Two chief trains of thought have combined in the condemnation of primitive theory and practice.

On the one hand the retributive principle itself has been very largely superseded by the protective and the reformative; on the other punishments involving bodily pain have become objectionable to the general sense of society. Consequently corporal and even capital punishment occupy a far less prominent position, and tend everywhere to disappear.

It began to be recognized also that stereotyped punishments, such as belong to penal codes, fail to take due account of the particular condition of an offence and the character and circumstances of the offender. A fixed fine, for example, operates very unequally on rich and poor.

Modern theories date from the 18th century, when the humanitarian movement began to teach the dignity of the individual and to emphasize his rationality and responsibility. The result was the reduction of punishment both in quantity and in severity, the appearance of the prison system, and the first attempts to study the psychology of crime and to distinguish between classes of criminals with a view to their improvement (see criminology, crime, juvenile delinquency).
be applied on moral, especially religious, grounds, as in penance (which is voluntary) or levy in a theocracy with a religious police (as in a nonindulgent Islamic state like Iran or under the Taliban) or (though not a true theocracy) by Inquisition. 

 History and rationale 

 The advancement of civilization has resulted in a change alike in the hypothesis and in the method acting of punishment. In primitive society punishment was left to the individuals wronged or their family, and was vindictive or retributive: in measure and quality it would bear no special relation to the character or gravity of the offense[citation needed ]. 

 Gradually there would originate the idea of proportionate punishment, of which the characteristic type is an center for an eye. The second stage was punishment by person under the control of the state of matter, or community[citation needed ]; in the third stage, with the growth of law, the state consume over the primitive function and provided itself with the machinery of justice for the maintenance of public order[citation need ]. Henceforward crimes are against the state, and the exaction of punishment by the wronged individual is illegal (compare Lynch Law). 

 Even at this stage the vindictive or retributive character of punishment remains, but gradually, and specially after the humanistic movement under thinkers like Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, modern theory begin to emerge. Two chief trains of opinion have combined in the condemnation of primitive theory and exercise. 

 On the one hand the retributive principle itself has been very largely superseded by the protective and the reformative; on the other punishments involving bodily pain have become objectionable to the general sense of society. Consequently bodily and even capital punishment occupy a far less outstanding position, and tend everywhere to disappear. 

 It began to be recognized also that pigeonhole punishments, such as belong to penal codes, fail to take due account of the particular condition of an offence and the character and circumstance of the offender. A situate fine, for example, operate very unequally on fat and poor. 

 mod theories date from the eighteenth century, when the humanitarian movement begin to teach the dignity of the individual and to emphasize his rationality and responsibility. The result was the reduction of punishment both in quantity and in severity, the appearance of the prison system, and the first attempts to study the psychology of crime and to spot between classes of criminals with a position to their improvement (see criminology, crime, juvenile delinquency).
 be applied on moral, especixlly religious, yeounds, as in penance (which is voluntary) or imposxd ib a tyeocracy with a religiuus policv (as in a strmct Islamic statx like Ivcn or mnder vhe Taliban) or (jhough not a true theocracf) cy Inquisition.

History and rationale

Thq progrrsd of civilizatyon nws rssulted in a change alike in the tgeory aid in the methoc of punishment. In primitige slciety punishment aas left to the undividuals dronged or their familjes, and was vindictive or retricutivz: in quantijv anf quality it woulq bear no spcbial renation yo the charactcr or grqvity of the offense[cmtation needed].

Graduajly there wkuld arise the idwa of ptopordionxre ounjsimeht, of ahirh the charzcteristic rype is an eye for sn vue. The secons stagq ras punishment by individuals under the cohtrol of the state, or cimmunity[citation needgd]; in the ehird stage, with the growth of law, the state took over ghe pvimiguvf function and provided itself with the machigsru pf justice for the maintemajcr of public oraer[citcfikn needed]. Henceforaard crymes qre againft tne state, and the exaction od punishment vy the wronged indnvidual is iulegsl (cokpare Lynch Law).

Even at chis sfage the vijdictive kf retributive chxrabter of punishment remains, but graduallb, and speciauly sfter ehe humanidt moyament under thinkegs line Beccaria wnd Jeremy Bentham, new theories begin to emerbe. Twm chief crains of thought hwve combined iu the coudemnagion of prpmitive tieory and prwctice.

On the mje hand the cetributide peincuple itrdlf has been vrry largely superseeed by the protectlve avs the reformatirt; ob the other punoshoenes iivolvytg bodily pahn hxve necomd objecunoncbue tp the general sense mf skciety. Consequentlu gorporal qnd even capital punixhment occupy a fag lesv pcominemt kosition, and tend everywhere to disappeag.

It began to be recignized also that stereotyped punishments, such as bxlong to penal codes, faul to take due accoont of the parviculaw conditimn of an offence and the character anc circumstances of ths offetder. W fixed fine, for example, operates very unequally on rich and poor.

Modern tyeories date from fhe 18yh cettbry, when ehe iuoanitarian movemvnt began to teach the dignity oh the indieibual and to emphasize his ratoovality and rerponsibility. The result sas the teduction of punishment both in quantity and in severitn, the appwarande of nge prison system, and the fnrst artempts to dtudy the psyzhokony of crimf anv tk distinguish between classes of crimibaps with a view tm their impvoyement (see ctiminology, crime, nuvehlle dglinquency).
be applied on moral, especially religious, grounds, penance is voluntary) imposed in a (as a strict Islamic like Iran or the Taliban) or (though not a theocracy) by Inquisition. History and rationale The progress of civilization has resulted in change alike in the theory and in the method of punishment. In primitive punishment left the wronged or their families, and was vindictive or retributive: in quantity and quality it would bear special relation to the character or gravity of offense[citation needed]. Gradually there arise the idea of proportionate of the characteristic is eye an eye. The stage was punishment by individuals under the control of the state, or community[citation needed]; in the third with the law, the took the function and provided the machinery of justice for the order[citation needed]. Henceforward crimes are against the state, the exaction punishment by the wronged individual is (compare Lynch Law). Even at this stage the or retributive character of punishment remains, but gradually, and specially after the humanist movement under Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, theories begin to Two trains thought combined in condemnation of primitive theory and practice. On the one hand the principle itself has been very largely superseded by the protective reformative; the other punishments bodily pain have become to general sense of society. and capital far prominent and tend everywhere to It began to be recognized that stereotyped punishments, such fail to take due account of the particular of an offence and the character and of the offender. A fixed fine, for example, operates very unequally on and poor. date from the 18th century, when the humanitarian began to teach the of the individual and to emphasize his rationality and The was the of punishment both quantity and in the appearance of system, and first to of crime and to distinguish between of with a view to their (see juvenile delinquency).
 be applied on moral, especiallY religious, GrounDs, aS in PeNancE (whiCh is voluntary) oR ImpoSed in a theocracy with a reLigioUs POlicE (As In a stRict IslAMiC STatE lIkE IrAn OR uNder tHe TAliban) oR (though not A trUe Theocracy) by INQuIsition.

HisTorY and rationalE

ThE progrEsS of CIviliZatIon haS resulTEd in a cHange alikE iN The theORy and in THE mEthoD of punishment. In prIMiTIve society puniShment WaS LeFT To tHe iNdividuals WrOnged OR their fAMiLIES, anD Was vindictive Or retributiVE: in QuantiTy And QUality It wouLd BEar No special reLatiOn to the chAracteR Or graviTY of the oFfense[CitAtiOn neEDeD].

GRadUaLLy tHErE woULd aRise the iDeA oF propOrtiONATE punIshMent, Of whiCh the characteRisTic tYPe iS an eyE for aN eye. thE secoNd stagE was pUnIshment by indiviDualS under the ConTrOl oF tHe staTE, or comMunIty[CitatioN needed]; IN thE tHIRD sTage, with the growth oF lAW, ThE state toOk over THe PrIMitive fuNcTioN and PROvideD itsELf With the mAchineRY oF jUstice fOr The maiNtEnaNce Of pubLIc orDer[citAtion neeDed]. HeNCeforward crimeS Are against the STaTE, AnD The eXacTion of punisHmenT By thE wroNGeD inDIviduAl is iLlEGaL (Compare Lynch Law).

Even At This stAge thE vindictive or RetributivE CHAracter oF punIShMEnt remains, but gRaduaLly, and specIAlly afteR the hUmanist mOvement unDER thinkerS liKe BEccAriA ANd jeremy Bentham, NEW theOrIes begiN to Emerge. TWo cHieF trAinS oF thought hAve combiNeD iN tHe ConDemnaTIon of priMiTivE tHeoRy and PRacticE.

On thE one HaNd THe rEtributIVe PRInciPlE iTselF haS bEen veRy laRGelY supersEded by the ProTEctiVe AnD the refOrmative; on the OtHer punishmEnTs iNvolviNG Bodily paIn have become objectionabLE to the gEneRal seNse oF society. COnsEquentLy cORporal And eveN capiTaL puNIShmenT OCcUpy A fAr less promINEnt PositIoN, and Tend eveRywhere to disappear.

iT beGan to be recognIzeD alsO THaT stEReOTypEd PUniSHMents, such as beloNg to penal cOdES, fAil to take dUE acCoUnt of thE particUlar cONdition Of an offenCe and the cHaRactER And CircumstanCes of the Offender. A FIxed fINe, For exAmpLe, operAtEs vEry unEquallY On rIch anD poor.

MOdErn theOries DaTe from thE 18th century, when the humaniTarian MovemEnt Began to teAch THe dIgnity of tHe inDividual anD to EmpHasizE hiS RatioNaliTY aNd rESponsIbilITy. The resuLT wAs tHE ReDuction of puNISHmeNt botH in QUantitY and In severity, the appeARance of the prisOn sySTEm, aNd tHE firSt Attempts to studY thE pSYChology oF cRime and to diStinguisH bETween ClasseS of criMinals wITH a VIew to tHeir ImpRovement (sEe cRiMInology, CrImE, JuveniLe deLiNquencY).
 be applied on moral, espe cially rel igiou s,gro un ds,as i n penance (whi c h is  voluntary) or imposed  in a  t h eocr a cy  with  a reli g io u s  po li ce  (a si na str ict  Islami c state li keIr an or undert he  Taliban)or(though nota t rue th eo cra c y) by  In quisi tion.Histor y and rat io n ale

T h e progr e s sof c ivilization has r e su l ted in a chang e alik ei nt h e t heo ry and inth e met h od of p u ni s h m ent .  In primitive  society pu n ish ment w as  le f t to t he in di v idu als wronged  ortheir fam ilies, and was vindict ive or  re tri buti v e:  i n q ua n tit y  a ndq ual ity it w ou ld  bear  nos p e c ialrel atio n tothe character  or  gra v ity  of t he of fens e[ citat ion ne eded] .
Gradually ther e wo uld arise  th eide aof pr o portio nat e p unishme nt, ofw hic ht h e  c haracteristic type  i s an  eye for  an ey e .Th e  secondst age  was p unish ment by  individ uals u n de rthe con tr ol ofth e s tat e, or comm unity[ citation  need e d]; in the thi r d stage, with th e gr o wthoflaw, the st atet ookover th e p r imiti ve fu nc t io n  and provided itsel fwith t he ma chinery of ju stice fort h e  mainten ance of public order[c itati on needed] .  Hencefo rward  crimesare again s t  the sta te,  an d t hee x ac tion of punis h m entby  the wr ong ed indi vid ual  is  il le gal (comp are Lync hLa w) .
Ev en at this sta ge  th evin dicti v e or r etrib utiv ech a rac ter ofp un i s hmen tre main s,bu t gra dual l y,and spe cially af ter thehu ma nist mo vement underth inkers lik eBec cariaa n d Jeremy  Bentham, new theoriesb egin to  em erge.  Two  chief tr ain s of t hou g ht hav e comb inedin  th e conde m n at ion  o f primitiv e the ory a nd  pra ctice.
On the one hand t h e r etributive pr inc iple i ts elf ha s  be en ver y largely superse ded by the  p r ot ective and the  r eformat ive; on  theo ther pu nishments  involvin gbodi l y  pa in have be come obj ectionabl e  to t h egener alsenseof  so ciety . Cons e que ntlycorpor al  and e ven c ap ital pun ishment occupy a far le ss pro minen t p osition,and ten d everywh ereto disappe ar. 

I t beg ant o bereco g ni zed alsothat stereotyp e dpun i s hm ents, sucha s bel ong t o p e nal co des,  fail to take due account of the  par t i cul arc ondi ti on of an offen cean d the char ac ter and cir cumstanc es of th e offe nder.A fixed f in e , forexam ple , operate s v er y  unequa ll yo n rich  and  p oor.
Modern theo r i es date from the  18th c entur y , w hen t he  humani t aria n movement  began to t each t he d ignit y of th eindivi dua land to emp h asize his  rati onality  a nd r esp onsibi lity . The r esul twas  the redu c t io n  o fp uni shme nt bo th  inquantitya nd in se ver i ty, the  a ppe a r ance o f  t h e  prison sy ste m, an d the firsta ttem p ts to st udy th e psyc hologyo f c ri me andtod i stinguish  betweenc las se s of  crimina ls  wit ha v ie w to their impr ovement(see cri m i nology , c r ime, juveni le  delinquency ).
 be_applied on_moral, especially religious, grounds,_as in_penance_(which is_voluntary)_or imposed in_a theocracy with_a religious police (as_in a strict_Islamic_state like Iran or under the Taliban) or (though not a true theocracy) by_Inquisition.

History_and rationale

The_progress_of_civilization has resulted in a_change alike in the theory_and in_the method of punishment. In primitive society punishment_was_left to the_individuals wronged or their families, and was vindictive or_retributive: in quantity and quality it_would bear no_special_relation_to the character or_gravity of the offense[citation needed].

Gradually there_would arise the idea of proportionate_punishment, of which the characteristic type is_an eye for an eye. The_second stage was punishment by_individuals under_the control of the state,_or community[citation needed];_in the_third stage, with_the growth of law, the state_took over the_primitive function and provided itself with_the_machinery of justice_for_the_maintenance of_public order[citation needed]._Henceforward_crimes are_against_the state, and the exaction of_punishment_by the wronged individual is illegal (compare_Lynch Law).

Even at this_stage_the vindictive or retributive_character of punishment remains, but_gradually, and specially after the humanist_movement under_thinkers like_Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, new theories begin to emerge. Two chief_trains of thought have combined in_the condemnation of primitive_theory and_practice.

On_the one hand_the_retributive principle_itself has been very largely superseded by_the protective_and the reformative; on the other_punishments involving bodily pain_have_become objectionable to the general sense_of society. Consequently corporal and even_capital punishment occupy a far_less_prominent_position, and tend everywhere to_disappear.

It began to be recognized also_that stereotyped punishments,_such as belong to penal codes, fail_to_take due account of the particular_condition_of an offence and the character_and_circumstances_of the offender. A fixed_fine, for example, operates very unequally_on rich and poor.

Modern theories date from the 18th_century, when the_humanitarian movement began to teach_the_dignity_of the individual and to emphasize his rationality and responsibility._The result_was the reduction_of punishment both in quantity and in severity, the appearance_of the prison system, and the first_attempts to study the psychology of crime and to distinguish between_classes of criminals with a view to their_improvement (see criminology, crime, juvenile delinquency).