It is important that in securing the rights of the convict, the rights of the victims (and or relatives) aren’t ignored. Several countries contemplate the representation of the victim at the time of the time of sentencing; after all, the crime committed by the convict is seen as one against society as a whole. The only compensation that the victim can get, where restoration is not possible, is an assurance that the convict is punished. When that punishment is missing either because of an error or because of extraneous grounds, it would naturally be seen as a failure on the part of the system. An effective sentence can be defeated either because of an inappropriate sentence guided by misplaced sympathy, deference to public feelings or an inappropriate exercise of the power of pardon. If sentencing was carried out with certain objectives, it follows that the abridgement of that sentence should be only on the attainment of the objective for which the sentence was passed in the first place.

A pardon ought to be granted only when the sentence has fulfilled its purpose and ought not to be granted when granting such pardon would defeat the purpose of the sentence. It is a settled principle of law that a power conferred on an authority must be exercised in furtherance of the objectives for which the power is granted. Unrepentant convicts ought not to be returned to the folds of society, just as penitent convicts ought not to be mercilessly allowed to rot in cells when society can benefit from their services.

... contd.