The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

committee viewed that the act was against the spirit of the Indian Constitution. It
recommended suitable steps to be taken for amelioration of the pitiable conditions of the
Criminal Tribes rather than stigmatizing them as criminals. As a result, the Criminal
Tribes Act of 1871 was repealed in 1952 and the Habitual Offenders Act was enacted
in its place. According to the Habitual Offenders Act, a habitual offender is one who has
been a victim of subjective and objective influences and has manifested a set practice in
crime, and also presents a danger to the society in which they live. The Habitual
Offenders are usually hardened criminals whose major part of life has been spent in
jails. It is because they commit offences at frequent intervals and are sent back to jail.
Pakistan
Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code deals with Habitual Offenders. The provisions
are activated upon a second conviction for a crime with a minimum sentence of three
years imprisonment. The Guidelines for sentencing given to criminal court indicate that
the discretion lies with the judge, and an enhanced sentence is not mandatory, and
should usually not be given in less serious criminal cases (such as petty theft) or where
the convictions are old. The judge is expected to adopt an individualized view and tailor
both the decision of awarding an enhanced sentence and the length of it to the case at
hand. For this the transcripts of the previous trials can be used.
United States
In the United States, several state governments have passed laws which require
the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended sentences to habitual
offenders (for example, making the repeated commission of the
same misdemeanor a felony). Three strikes laws specifically target those who have
been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions.
Criticism
There has been various criticism of Habitual Offender Laws. Some examples are
included below.
Unjust and Unusual Results
Habitual Offender laws, depending on their scope and discretionary room given to
judges, can lead to persons being punished quite severely for relatively minor offenses.
The discretionary nature of the laws means that they can be applied unevenly.
In Australia, laws relating to dangerous and Habitual offenders have been criticized as
ignoring the principle of certainty in sentencing. Another major concern in Australia is
the considerable disparity that exists in the requirements for dangerous offender status
and in the available sentences for such offenders across jurisdictions. Age and offense
requirements, indeterminate or fixed sentencing provisions, and review procedures are
Page 76 of 190