History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.464.1

v4.c63.464.1

The ancient smṛti writers were quite aware of the several purposes served by punishments for crimes,⁶¹⁶ though they do not develop a regular science of penology. The person wronged feels a great urge for revenge or retaliation and other men sympathise with that emotion. The individual, however, could not, in civilized societies, take the law into his own hands and therefore the State saw to it that the emotion for retaliation or revenge was to some degree satisfied by the adequate punishment of the wrongdoer. Yāj. II. 16 and Nār. I. 46 (SBE vol. 33 p. 17) state that when a person without complaining to the king sets about to secure what is denied by the opposite side or is doubtful he becomes liable to punishment and he also cannot secure the object he wants.616a In all ancient societies the *lex talionis* (the law of retaliation, viz. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) prevailed.⁶¹⁷ Manu VIII. 280 (which is almost the same as Nār., pāruṣya, verse 25), Yāj. II. 215, Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 19 and Śaṅkha-Likhita prescribe that with whatever limb⁶¹⁸ a man of low caste offends against a brāhmaṇa, that very limb of his shall be cut off. Another and the most important purpose of punishment is deterrent. Punishment of the evil-doer serves as an example and a warning to all others that might be tempted to tread the paths of violence and crime. This aspect of punishment (*daṇḍa*) has already been dwelt upon in the section on *rājadharma* (p. 21).