Thuppaki and a jurists perspective on it:

INTRODUCTION:

Thuppkaki is a Tamil film directed by a. r. murgadoss starring ilayathalapthy vijay and kajal
Agarwal (my first erection) the film revolves around the story of jagadeesh an Indian military
officer and also a DIA defence intelligence analyst. he film, produced by S. Thanu, features
background score and soundtrack composed by Harris Jayaraj with cinematography handled
by Santhosh sivan, who with thuppakki, introduced the Arri Alexa camera to Indian cinema.
This project deals with how the protoganist in the film in his actions of saving the society
from a terrorist attack has acted as a utilitarian as well as a retributivist.

Storyline:

Jagadeesh returns to his hometown Mumbai during his military vacation during which his
parents decide to select a bride groom for him. His family embers make him look at nisha at
the bride viewing ceremony. Even though his family members are very impressed by nisha
and want their son to marry her jades refuses to do so. He makes some frivolous excuses in
order to escape from the marriage citing reasons such as nisha was a very old fashioned timid
girl who despite her upbringing in a metro was too shy and reserved. He calls up the nishas
father and expresses the fact that he is not disinterested in his daughter. Later it is shown that
unlike jagdeeshs perception of nisha she is shown as the exact antithesis of what he thinks
about her. infect she is shown as an outspoken bold courageous women who is also a college
level boxer. On finding out this jagdeesh madly falls in love with nisha . After a few adverse
reactions in the beginning nisha starts to fall for his antics.

In a parallel storyline we are shown that while jagdeesh and his friend balaji are seen
travelling in a corporation bus when one of the passengers screams that his wallet has been
stolen. In order to find out who has taken the wallet jagdeesh and balaji volunteer to check
each and every passenger to find out the culprit. In the meantime while everyone is shown
standing in the queue be checked we are shown that a particular passenger seems to be very
nervous. He manages to evade the checking and flee. Jagdeesh on seeing this starts pursuing
him on foot, I the process balaji exclaims that the thief has been found .jagdeesh is perplexed
as to why the guy he was chasing was running sensing something sinister he continues his
pursuit ad manages to catch the passenger. While interrogating the captured passenger a
bomb explodes in the bus I which he was travelling thereby killing almost everyone except
for him and his friend. Jagdeesh on knowing the fact that the person he capture was the
terrorist was a cop hands him over to the cops. Later the arrested terrorist manages to escape
from the clutches of the police but is however aught by jagdessh who instead of handing him
over to the cops takes him into his own custody .later he tortures him for further information
about the planned terrorist attacks that he had found out by interpreting a dotted map that was
confiscated from the accused. Later we are shown jagdeesh along with balaji attend a
colleagues marriage in a church, before attending then marriage jagdeesh deliberately unties
the captive terrorist and gives him a shot of sedative that would last a couple of hours.
Despite his friend balajis stiff opposition to the plan jagdeesh moves on with it. Later in the
marriage jagdeesh invites his colleagues for a game and when they accept it he brings them to
his house and waits for the terrorist to come out so knowing that the sedatives effect would
have been over in the meantime. Jagdeesh and his friends discreetly follow the freed
terrorist. As the chase goes on it is show that when the terrorist meets another on and they
both split of, jagdeesh and his member of twelve split into two groups and follow the two.
Similarly as the number of people involved goes on increasing jagdish teams splits up
correspondingly such that at last such that they have twelve members following twelve
persons. It is at this moment that jagdeesh reveals the fact that they people that they are
following are not ordinary citizens but sleeper cells who work for a terrorist organisation and
have plant to conduct multiple bomb blast across twelve areas in Mumbai. He also asks his
teammates to search for the gun he had concealed in the bags that he had given everyone and
later in the count of three jagdeesh and his teammates take out twelve of the sleeper cells
simultaneously. This creates a nationwide sensation as the police later find out the fact that
these twelve who were killed were sleeper cells and were planning to conduct bomb blasts
across the city. In another parallel storyline somewhere in Jammu and Kashmir we are shown
that vidyut jamwal who is the leader of the sleeper cells comes to know about this and he also
comes to know about the fact that police did not get their hands on the mobile phone of one
of the slain operatives knowing that the killers would have taken it, vidyut calls the particular
phone and confronts jagdish and vows to kill him. Later vidyut arrives to Mumbai on a quest
to find out the killers of his men. using the particular dress code that was followed by the
killers and the precise way in which they had executed the mission he zeroes it down on
defence personal who have some kind of military training he later asks his aides to collect
information regarding meeting of people who satisfied the criteria. In the due process of
investigation it is shown that vidyut zeroes it down on the marriage ceremony that jagdeesh
went to and after assassinating the family members of the bridegroom they manage to get five
photos that was taken in the marriage. They were the photos of the different batches of
battalions the bridegroom who was also a military officer. Vidyut later zeroes in on the fact
that the alleged killers should belong to one of the five groups. Later he orders his henchmen
to kidnap the siblings of any one of the members of the five batches respectively. Closely
following in on their jagdeesh knowing about this plan deliberately substitutes the siblings of
one of his batch mates with one of his own. Later with the help of a police dog that he had
adopted he manages to track down the location of the kidnapped meanwhile the terrorists find
out that one of the brothers of the siblings had deliberately substituted her. vidyut comes to
know about this and sensing something was wrong asks his men to kill the victims as soon as
possible and leave the place but before that could happen jagdeesh appears on the scene and
the a bloody fight follows wherein which jagdeesh manages to kill all the terrorists and save
the victims. But later it is shown that jagdeesh had later left evidence for vidyut to ascertain
which batch the killers belonged. Vidyut later sends his men to spy on the twelve members of
the batch and blackmails jagdeesh saying that if he doesnt compile with what he says he will
blow up everyone and even does it by blowing up the mall wherein which one of his
members had gone to. Later jagdeesh complies with what he asks and ends up in their
headquarters face to face with vidyut. later a bloody hand to hand combat ensues between the
two in which jagdeesh manages to outsmart the later and takes him hostage in a small boat
and after having covered a considerable distance from the ship jagdeesh blows up the entire
ship with all its terrorists, later it is shown that all along the while jagdeesh was tracked by a
GPS dot in his dress by his accomplices who had planted a bomb in the ship the minute
jagdeesh got into it.

Theories of Punishment (kinds of Punishment under Criminal Law)

SYNOPSIS-

1) INTRODUCTION

2) THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

1) INTRODUCTION
A Punishment is a consequence of an offense. Punishments are imposed on the wrong doers
with the object to deter them to repeat the same wrong doing and reform them into law-
abiding citizens. The kind of punishment to be imposed on the criminal depends or is
influenced by the kind of society one lives in. The aim of the different theories of
punishments is to transform the law-breakers into law-abiders.

2) THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

The different theories of Punishment are as follows

Deterrent Theory
Retributive Theory
Preventive Theory
Reformative Theory
Expiatory Theory

Retributive theory

This theory is based on the idea of vindictive justice, or a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an
eye. The principle is that if a man has caused the loss of a man's eye, his eye one shall cause
to be lost; if he has shattered a man's limb, one shall shatter his limb; if a man has made the
tooth of a man that is his equal fall out, one shall make his tooth fall out.

This is to pay back the wrong-doer for his wrong-doing. It means that the wrong-doer has to
be made to suffer by way of retaliation, even if no benefit results thereby to him or to others.

Historically, at first the instinct or the impulse of revenge was gratified by retaliatory
measures on the part of the individual who suffered by the crime committed, or in the case of
murder, by his relatives.

Later, the state took away the right of retaliation from individuals because it was believed that
since the criminal has broken the law and hurt someone, he deserves to suffer.
It was also argued by those who were in favour of retribution that the victim of crime and/or
his relatives and friends will refuse to cooperate with society if the offender is not brought to
justice. Thus, assuming the function of revenge by the state really constituted the beginning
of criminal law.

It is easy to dismiss the retributive theory with the remark that it is a remnant of the barbaric
conception of vengeance. But the fact is that the early Greeks and many ancient spiritual
books decried that one has an obligation to avenge the killing of a kinsman.

The traditional code of honour still prevalent in many societies is that a gentleman must, at
the risk of life, resent an insult to the extent of seeking to remove it with the blood of the
offender.

Even in the modern times, popular sentiment is that if a wife of a person is insulted or
violated, he need not wait for a policeman; it is his duty to knock the offender down. Such a
view prevails in almost all enlightened nations.

But the problem with the retributive theory is that it fails to suggest an acceptable criterion
whereby to discriminate between just and unjust punishment. Kant offers us the principle of
equality between the crime and the penalty. This sounds simple in the case of murder-a life
for a life. But it is obviously not capable of being extended.

Can crime and punishment really be equated? What penalty can equal the crime of rape,
kidnapping, forgery, dishonesty and so on? For the state to exercise the same amount of
brutality against the criminal that the criminal exercised against his victim would be
demoralising to any community.

This theory of vengeance was, however, rejected with the ingress of the idea of refinement
and the humanising of society. It came to be argued that the passion of revenge cannot be
allowed to drive out reason.

The feeling of retaliation will create demand for making punishment as severe as possible. It
will only array man against man. The idea of treatment of criminals on the other hand will
place a premium upon violence against criminals.

Besides, in modern society, neither the victims of crime support the idea of physical torture
of criminals nor the public opinion would tolerate sanguinary methods of punishment.
In fact, now the popular demand is to eliminate all methods of punishment that cause physical
suffering. The idea of doing away with severe punishment for taking revenge does not mean
that the offender will escape all pain. Punishment will be awarded to the criminal but it would
be devoid of the idea of vengeance.

The argument is that if a criminal is not punished, the public would feel frustrated and its
obedience of the law would appear meaningless. Punishment of criminals would help to unify
society against crime and criminals and also maintain respect for law. If law-violators and
law-conformists receive the same treatment, there would be no reason to abide by the law.

Thus, punishment of the criminal will make people rally in support of law enforcement,
encourage them in their fight against crime, and help the authorities to maintain the public
sense of justice.

Today, not only the idea of revenge in punishment is rejected but even the idea of punishing
the offenders is criticised by many scholars. The argument that is most accepted is that we
should hate the crime but not the criminal.

There are many ways for achieving social solidarity. What is needed is the measures designed
to prevent crime. The idea of retribution is to be totally rejected. Further arguments against
retribution are:

1. It is now scientifically established through various empirical studies that the functioning of
social systems and social structures is more responsible for crime than individual himself. As
such, would it be logical to give retributive punishment to those who commit crimes due to
force of circumstances rather than their personality traits?

2. Protecting the interests of criminals is as important today as protecting the interests of

society or the victims. The punishment should therefore be proportional to the loss incurred.

3. The present society stresses humanitarianism and scientific progress. The movement in
such a society should be to prevent crime rather than make criminal suffer, which is largely
repressive.

4. Since almost all prisoners return to society, it is necessary that they must not be so
stigmatised that they cannot take up lawful pursuits upon their release. Retributive
punishment only makes criminals confirmed enemy of society.
5. Religious conscience and moral and ethical principles have always emphasised the
importance of forgiveness, pity, mercy, charity, and considered these values as supreme
values. It is, therefore, only moral and proper to pardon the criminal.

6. Holding that if society fails to punish the offender, the victim and his relatives may take
the law in their own hands is not correct. Today, the victims of crime tend to shrink from the
idea of subjecting criminals to physical torture. In fact, the victim feels satisfied if his loss is
restored or he is properly compensated. He disregards the causes that produce a criminal or
the measures adopted for dealing with criminals.

7. Resorting to the argument that a person can be prevented from indulging in crime by
awarding him retributive punishment is invalid. Mackenzie has stated that it is only when an
offender sees the punishment of his crime to be the natural or logical outcome of his act that
he is likely to be led to any real repentance and it is only this recognition that is likely to lead
others to genuine abhorrence of crime.

In spite of these arguments, it may be pointed out that though reformation and in some cases
deterrence receive more attention, yet retribution too continues to remain one of the purposes
of punishment.

There are cases where retributive punishment is still considered necessary. The retributive
punishment of imposing death penalty on offenders like Ranga and Billa in Delhi who had
killed Chopra children was not condemned by society, nor has the retributive punishment to
the terrorists of Punjab and Kashmir who had killed a large number of innocent persons of all
religions Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims been described as severe and unjustified.

Rather, people look forward to having such offenders punished severely. It is in such cases of
crime that retribution stands out distinctly as a purpose of punishment.

JADGEESH AS A RETRIBUTIVIST:

In this film it is very clearly seen that jagdeesh even though going above the hand of law and
taking vigilatainsm into a whole new level follows the principle of retributive theory of
punishment. He follows the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. this is very
much clearly seen in the scene wherein which he confesses to his teammates about the truth
of the people they were following he gives a speech on how todays theories of punishment
with the exception of retributive theory of punishment had become obsolete and the fact that
it was time to show the terrorists a taste of their very own medicine. He also exclaims that it
was for us to show that even we know their tactics and it was time to show it to them.
moreover it is very important to note that jagdeesh in the whole film does not hesitate even
for a second to kill the terrorists ruthlessly he does not care when it comes to bombing their
hide outs stabbing them or shooting them all he cares about is the fact that the suffering that
they had inflicted on the people must be inflicted on them this was solely because of the
actions that they had committed. In the process of exterminating the terrorists he makes sure
that they feel the same suffering that they had inflicted on hundreds of people all these days.
It is at this point of time that jagdeesh proves himself to be a textbook retributivist.

Utilitarianism:

In the notion of consequences the Utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced by the
act, whether arising after the act has been performed or during its performance. If the
difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not great, some Utilitarians do not
regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According to Mill, acts should be classified
as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person
would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the
preferred manner.

In assessing the consequences of actions, Utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic
value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other
values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means
to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analysed happiness as a balance
of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and
disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic values produced
by two alternative actions and to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham
believed that a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist, he maintained, could
sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be affected,
immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure of the overall good or
evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not
essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the Utilitarian to make some interpersonal
comparisons of the values of the effects of alternative courses of action.

Methodologies

As a normative system providing a standard by which an individual ought to act and by

which the existing practices of society, including its moral code, ought to be evaluated and
improved, Utilitarianism cannot be verified or confirmed in the way in which
a descriptive theory can; but it is not regarded by its exponents as simply arbitrary. Bentham
believed that only in terms of a Utilitarian interpretation do words such as ought, right,
and wrong have meaning and that whenever anyone attempts to combat the principle of
utility, he does so with reasons drawn from the principle itself. Bentham and Mill both
believed that human actions are motivated entirely by pleasure and pain; and Mill saw
that motivation as a basis for the argument that, since happiness is the sole end of human
action, the promotion of happiness is the test by which to judge all human conduct.

Criticisms:

Most opponents of Utilitarianism have held that it has implications contrary to their moral
intuitionsthat considerations of utility, for example, might sometimes sanction the
breaking of a promise. Much of the defence of Utilitarian ethics has consisted in answering
these objections, either by showing that Utilitarianism does not have the implications that
they claim it has or by arguing against the moral intuitions of its opponents. Some
Utilitarians, however, have sought to modify the Utilitarian theory to account for the
objections.

Jagdeesh and Bentham:

In the full length of the film it is important to note that jagdeesh acted as a utilitarian and
shows particular affinity towards bethams theory of utilitarianism. He proves this argument
clearly by trying to sacrifice his very own sister in an attempt to save a group of girls. In an
instance it is seen that he is even willing to lay down his own life for the benefit of the
society. In all these instances jagdeesh clearly works on maximising the utility that is net
pleasure of the people minus the net pain. In all his acts he is seen trying his best to increase
the pleasure of the people. In the scene wherein which he kills the twelve sleeper cells
simultaneously with the help of his colleagues it is shown that he acts out as a true positivist.
He does not care about the lives of the few he is going to sacrifice by setting free the terrorist
instead he one and only focus is on killing all the terrorists and exterminating the entire
organisation in order to prevent them posing any threat to the entire population. Moreover in
the scene wherein which his sisters scorns him for sacrificing her life jagdeesh admonishes
her by saying that when the terrorists themselves are willing to lay down their lives for the
sake of their cause why shouldnt we the citizens of our nation lay down our lives for the sake
of our entire nation. It is also interesting to note that jagdeeshs actions satisfy all the seven
criteria given under Benthams hedonistic calculus.

Benthams hedonistic calculus is a methodology that is used to determine whether ones

particular action are intended towards maximising the pleasure of the society or in other
words determining whether a persons action is utilitarian or not.

The seven criteria given in the hedonistic calculus are

1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?

By jadeeshs action of killing almost an entire terrorist network with his teammates
the pleasure of the general public is supposed to increase manifold otherwise if not
for him the pain that would have been caused by the terrorists would have been of a
much larger magnitude.

2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?

The duration the pleasure will definitely be for a much longer time considering the
fact that the protagonist killed the entire terrorist network so one can safely presume
that the pleasure incurred out of the peacetime that would be created would last for a
considerable amount of time

3. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
 The certainty of the pleasure is unquestionable as the hero had vanquished the entire
terrorist organisation.

4. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?

The propinquity of the pleasure was immediate n nature as the people all around the
nation would have definitely been revealed after knowing the fact that a terrorist
organisation that had planned to kill them had been wiped out.

5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same
kind.

By setting an example for vigilantism thee protagonist has ensured that inspired by
his actions the general public too would follow o his heels.

6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.

Definitely not because the heroes actions in this film acted as a bulwark against any
further nefarious actions that would have taken place

7. Extent: How many people will be affected?

In this case the entire population of India would be affected because terrorism is a
national issue and involves the lives of each and every person of this nation.

Conclusion:

Thus in this film the protagonist jagdeesh acts out as both a retributivist as well as a
utilitarianism. He upholds both these ideals through his actions in the film. not only does he
exterminate an entire terrorist group but also maximises the pleasure of the people and has
managed in subtle way to cause a proportional amount of suffering to the terrorists in their
own way. Not only does his utilitarianism reflect that of Bentham but his actions satisfy the
seven criteria given in the felicity calculus. Thus I conclude my project by stating that the
protagonist in the film thuppaki acted out as a utilitarian and at the same time upheld the
ideas of retributive theory of punishment.