APPROPRIATE LEGAL MEASURES FOR RECIDIVISTS

Abstract

This article examines on interpretation of the provisions increasing the punishments of the recidivists shall be taken into account to see whether using and interpreting the provisions in practice which shall be increased for the subsequent offenses in the forms of imprisonment and fine are in pursuance of the intendment of laws or not. Upon taking into consideration the concepts of punishments against the persistent offenders and theory of punishments, inclusive of each category of punishments’ objectives, the purposes for punishing the persistent offenders are demand for punishing the offenders not fearing to repeat the offenses and cure the offending behaviors by not being afraid of the penalty provisions, based upon deterrence and incapacitation theory. The measure in response to such objective is imprisonment

In addition, this study found that Section 92 of the Criminal Code is an inflexible rule lacking differentiation. Even so, other factors, such as the frequency and the rapidity with which criminal behavior reoccurs after release from imprisonment, as well as the severity of the present offense, also play a role in the decision, which compels a court simply to impose unsuitable penalties, and which, therefore, violates both the axiom that punishment must be compatible with guilt and the prohibition against excessive punishment. From the comparative study, the provision should be amended to create and establish the facts-related frameworks so that the judges would be able to impose the punishments in line within the scope of the penology theories and appropriate for both the offence and each individual offender.