Habitual Offender

What is a 'Habitual Offender'

A habitual offender, also known as a repeat offender or career criminal, is a person who has been convicted of crimes multiple times and shows a pattern of criminal behavior. The concept is used in criminal justice to identify individuals who are more likely to reoffend and are often subjected to stricter legal scrutiny and sanctions. Laws relating to habitual offenders aim to reduce recidivism and protect society.

---

Official Definition of 'Habitual Offender'

Habitual Offender' as defined in legislation(s)

Several Indian state laws and new national criminal codes define or refer to habitual offenders.

Legal provision(s) relating to 'Habitual Offender'

• Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code provides the arrest of the habitual offender without an arrest warrant and Section 110 says about the requirement of bond as a security for good behavior from habitual offenders. In Section 413, IPC provides the provision relating to the persons who deal in stolen property habitually, Section 310 has provisions relating to the thug.

• Section 43 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita allows police officers to use handcuffs when arresting individuals involved in serious crimes such as habitual or repeat offenders, escapees, organized crime, terrorism, drug-related crimes, illegal possession of arms, murder, rape, acid attacks, counterfeiting, human trafficking, sexual offenses against children, or offenses against the State.

• Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act, 1952: Defines a habitual offender as someone convicted and sentenced to imprisonment more than twice within five years for scheduled offenses, with at least 12 months of cumulative imprisonment. Focuses on surveillance and reformation.
• Tamil Nadu Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948: Identifies a habitual offender based on three or more convictions for scheduled offenses and provides for movement restrictions and supervision.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Section 71: Applies to repeat sexual offenders; provides for enhanced punishment.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – Section 129: Allows Executive Magistrates to require persons with a record of certain offenses (e.g., robbery, theft, extortion, cheating) to furnish security for good behavior.
• BNSS – Provisions on Arrests: Permits use of handcuffs for habitual offenders, escapees, or those accused of serious offenses, for public safety.

---

'Habitual Offender' as defined in international instrument(s)

• United States: The Three-Strikes Law mandates life imprisonment upon a third felony. The Armed Career Criminal Act (1984) imposes a 15-year minimum for repeat violent/drug offenders.
• United Kingdom: The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, 1974 allows for spent convictions after a rehabilitation period, though courts retain discretion for stricter sentencing.
• Canada: The earlier Habitual Offender Act was repealed; replaced by Part XXIV of the Criminal Code (1977) allowing for indeterminate sentencing of "Dangerous Offenders."
• France: Peines Planchers mandated minimum sentences for recidivists between 2007–2014, later repealed.
• Germany: Allows preventive detention for habitual offenders.
• Turkey: Article 58 of the Turkish Penal Code enables enhanced penalties for repeat offenders.

---

'Habitual Offender' as defined in official document(s)

The "Crimes in India 2022" report by the National Crime Records Bureau discusses recidivism, a related concept, but does not define "habitual offender" explicitly.

---

'Habitual Offender' as defined in official government report(s)

• 154th Law Commission Report of India (1996): The report, focusing on Criminal Procedure reforms, discusses how prior convictions should be factored into sentencing and preventive detention proceedings. It notes the dangers of labeling individuals without strong procedural safeguards. However, it does not define “habitual offender” formally. The Commission emphasized the need for balanced sentencing policies that avoid over-punishing individuals based merely on prior records without assessing current risks (Law Commission of India, 154th Report, 1996).
• Additional Context: The 154th Report’s discussion underlines concerns around disproportionate punishment of marginalized groups through habitual offender legislation, echoing due process concerns. It suggested reforms towards more individualized risk assessments rather than blanket classifications.
• In 2003, the Government of India introduced the Model Prison Manual (MPM) to improve prison administration.[8] It outlined guidelines for treating young offenders separately from adults, focusing on education and training programs to prevent further criminal behavior and reduce recidivism.While recidivism isn't a major issue in the Indian criminal justice system, it's imperative to proactively address it before it escalates. Rather than relying on harsh punishment, modern penology advocates for individualized treatment, viewing criminality as a social disorder that requires tailored correctional approaches.
• Repeat offenders often face harsher punishment, as it is believed that previous penalties were not sufficiently deterrent. For example, under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 75 mandates life imprisonment or up to ten years for subsequent offenses related to certain crimes. Additionally, IPC Section 370 convicts of human trafficking face life imprisonment, while first-time offenders face seven to ten years. Section 376-E stipulates life imprisonment or death for subsequent rape offenses. Similarly, habitual dealing in stolen property may lead to life imprisonment, while first-time offenders face up to three years or a fine.
• Recidivists and habitual offenders are placed under constant surveillance. Section 356 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 allows a competent court to order notification of a convict’s residence for up to five years. State governments may make rules for this notification. Habitual offenders may also be required to execute a bond for good behavior for a maximum of three years. State laws must adhere to constitutional rights. In Govind v. State of MP [1975][10], the Supreme Court upheld regulations for surveillance, including domiciliary visits, on suspected habitual criminals.

---

'Habitual Offender' as defined in case law(s)

Indian courts have touched upon the concept of habitual offenders primarily in the context of preventive detention, sentencing policy, and constitutional challenges to such classifications. While there is no singular definition arising from case law, judicial decisions reflect evolving understandings of habitual offending.

1. Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1982 SC 1143: The Court held that the term “habitual offender” must not be applied loosely. There must be clear, consistent evidence of repeated criminal conduct before an individual can be subjected to preventive detention under habitual offender laws.
2. Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 2198: The Court emphasized that mere involvement in multiple criminal cases does not establish one as a habitual offender unless there is a pattern or continuity in conduct that shows a tendency to commit crime habitually.
3. Prem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 613: Highlighted the importance of protecting individuals from arbitrary labeling under the tag of "habitual offenders," reinforcing that such classifications must stand the test of reasonableness and proportionality under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Types of 'Habitual Offender'

Slight differences and nuances in the concept

• Some laws (Punjab, Tamil Nadu) emphasize numerical thresholds of conviction.
• Others (BNSS) focus on preventive measures and good behavior security bonds.

Variations in usage across civil society or research

• Legal scholarship sometimes critiques the term as stigmatizing and overly punitive.
• Reformist perspectives focus on rehabilitation, not labeling.

Functional variations across regions

• Punjab and Tamil Nadu have their state-specific legislation.
• Delhi police manuals have surveillance registers for habitual offenders, functioning without specific legislation.

Nomenclature variations

• Terms like “career criminal,” “repeat offender,” and “dangerous offender” are used in international and comparative contexts.

International Experience

Definitional and operational frameworks

• U.S.: Strict sentencing regimes like Three-Strikes.
• Canada, Germany: Preventive detention and discretion-based risk assessments.
• UK, France: Rehabilitation-focused with flexible judicial discretion.

Deviations from Indian conceptualisation

• Indian law uses fixed numerical criteria and executive/magisterial surveillance.
• Western systems often emphasize judicial discretion, rehabilitation, or incapacitation.

Learnings or Best Practices

• Balance between rehabilitation and public safety (Germany, UK).
• Caution against mandatory minimums (France’s repeal of Peines Planchers).

Appearance of 'Habitual Offender' in Database

Database A – NCRB (Crimes in India)

• Related term "recidivism" appears in the chapter on repeat crimes.
• Does not directly define "habitual offender."

Research that engages with 'Habitual Offender'

Research Document X / Y / Z

No specific academic or civil society studies were listed. Can be added based on further inputs.

Challenges

• Lack of a uniform definition across Indian states and national law.
• Absence of disaggregated data on habitual offending in official databases.
• Balancing between punitive and reformative approaches.
• Stigmatization of individuals without due rehabilitation.

---

Way Ahead

• Standardize definitions across central and state laws.
• Incorporate risk-assessment tools to differentiate between types of repeat offenders.
• Improve NCRB data to distinguish habitual from one-time offenders.
• Learn from models like Germany and Canada for preventive and rehabilitative justice.

---

Related Terms

• Recidivism
• Repeat offender
• Dangerous offender
• Career criminal
• Reformatory laws
• Executive surveillance