The Indian Penal Code punishes a person for the crime s/he commits. However, in complete contrast, the approach of spiritual prudence is to reform the criminal, says Rajyogi Brahmakumar Nikunj Ji
The IPC (The Indian Penal Code) has many sections to deal with cognisable and non-cognisable offences and also some attempts to commit offences. These crimes are grouped under various heads viz: offences affecting the human body, against property, relating to marriage, criminal breach of contracts of service, defamation, criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance... to name a few. If we analyse the factors leading to committal of crimes, we will find that a flaw or a weakness in the character of the person has been responsible for his committing that crime. So, either the tendencies, the habits and the urge in a person compel him/her to commit a crime or the circumstances are tempting, alluring, provocative or enervating and he/she falls prey to them. He cannot control himself, cannot withstand the adverse circumstances and is, thus, carried away by his emotions. Sometimes, he labours under some kind of misunderstanding and gets infuriated and loses his balance of mind. At times, he thinks that the whole society consists of criminals — some small and others big — and if he also commits a crime then how does it matter? In other words, frustration or the vicious environment also instigates him to commit crime.
In addition to these, we find that, when a person sees that people give more respect to a rich person, howsoever, dishonest, hypocrite and exploitative he might be and, on the other hand, they do not consider a poor or a middle class man as worthy of respect even if that person be honest, sincere, truthful and of sterling character, then he also thinks of adopting a short cut to money or status even by grossly dishonest means. Thus, the deformed and distorted value-system, prevalent in the society, also leads a person to crime by giving him a faulty outlook and wrong attitudes. Further, it is observed that it is the belief system of a person that determines his behaviour. So if a person thinks that it is just, proper and wise to give sound beating to a person who insults him or intimidates him, then he will always be prone to attack that person and will commit violence, conveniently forgetting the consequences. He will take law in his hands because he believes that there is nothing wrong in taking revenge even if it is by violent means.
It is well known to all that the approach of IPC is to punish a person for the crime he/she commits. However, in complete contrast to this, the approach of spiritual prudence, is not to punish but to reform the criminal. There is, however, one point which to some extent is common to both but which is not given due cognisance at times in criminal law. The criminal jurisprudence recognises that if a person, who commits crime is of unsound mind or is incapable of judgement by reason of intoxication or is a minor, then his action, even if violative of a law, will not be considered as an offence and the person will not be subjected to harsh punishment. But in spiritual prudence, it is thought that even if a person is not a minor but a major and even if he is not ‘insane’ in the commonly known connotation of the term, he is still of unsound mind when he commits a crime.
Another difference between the criminal jurisprudence and spiritual prudence is that, according to the latter, a murder, theft, etc, committed by anyone, of whatever age or whatever state of mind, is a sin even though its severity and the punishment it would attract in course of time, may vary according to the age, state of mind or intent of the person. A sin is a sin even if it is not a crime. The divine law will take its course; it has its own procedure code. That is why even if a person may escape punishment for crime by any means, he cannot escape punishment for his sins. So, the efforts of spiritual prudence are addressed to changing a person’s belief systems, applying corrective measures to his outlook so that he/she may be able to stand the whirlwind of hard and adverse circumstances.
It should be noted that spiritual prudence does not say that a person be not given punishment by authority of law and through due legal process, however it has compassion for the sinner and takes the aforesaid steps. One, however, wonders why they, who are doing great service to the society through jurisprudence, do not recommend, advocate or promote this kind of process in jails, remand homes, reform centres and also in schools and colleges so that we can gradually move towards the new paradigm of a crimeless society.