Punishment And Punishment In Education

One idea, I agree with, from Chapter Three discussed how punishment hinders ethical development. Before students act out or do something bad, they think about what consequences they might face for such actions. This “suggests a disturbingly primitive level of moral development, yet it is our use of punishment that causes kids to get stuck there” (p. 29). I could not agree more with this sentence. I remember as a child thinking about doing something bad and the consequences that might result. I remember how I typically would do the “bad” thing because either I would not get caught or I could take the consequences. However, the book suggests getting children to think about the consequences of their misbehaviors is not effective and does not instill better values or awareness of others’ needs. Because of this, we as educators must

Punishment-Based interventions are types of treatment that is sometime used in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis to modify or change behaviors. There is a quite a bit of controversy and misunderstanding related to use of punishment. Punishment-based interventions have been proven to be one of the most controversial treatments used by behavior analyst and found in behavior analyst literature (e.g. Johnston, 1991; Matson & Kazdin, 1981; Repp & Singh, 1990) (DiGennaro Reed, & Lovett, 2008). The definition itself is many times confused or lack understanding. Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2006) explain that punishment frequently misunderstood, misapplied and quite controversial. There are some therapists or behavior analysts, parents, caregivers, teachers, and people in general who support punishment and some who do not (Hall, 2013). Although there is a lot of controversy about whether to use punishment or not, punishment is indeed still sometimes used in the field of applied behavior analysis, but there are special guidelines for using punishment based procedures in the field. Before a behavior analyst can decide whether or not they want to use punishment in an intervention, they must clearly understand the definition

The society generally has established customs and moral imperative to guide the conduct of each member of that particular society. These norms designating certain ways in which people ought to live in the society exist in societal laws and moral prescription. The justifications for the ideal practices in the society have been found in the desire to maintain peaceful coexistence in the society. The extent of freedom of an individual is therefore often curtailed for the greater good of the society. These utilitarian considerations have been discussed amidst the concept and rationale of punishment. John Stuart Mill, Michel Foucault and Kantian ethics have been used to justify or refute the notion and rationale of punishment in our society. These ethical perspectives provide useful insight into understanding punishment and its justifications or otherwise. Punishment is necessary as a social control tool and must be exerted with reasonableness and with due regard for the aim for which it is exerted.

Punishment is used as a way to protect the values and used as a deterrent to create the right values in society.

Punishment has occurred when a response is followed immediately by a stimulus change to decrease the future frequency of the behavior. Positive punishment aids in the decrease in the problem behavior. Reprimand is one of the most common forms of positive punishments. A firm "No" or "Stop" delivered immediately on the occurrence of an undesirable behavior will significantly reduce the chance of the behavior being repeated in the future.

It is important that parents, caregivers, teachers, or adults do their best to prevent negative influences for children. The behavioral perspective reflects the view that nurture, in which most of the time is more important to develop than nature. Behavior affects the development of young children in two ways; classical conditioning (when an organism learns to respond in a particular way to a neutral stimulus that normally does not evoke that type of response, and operant conditioning, a form of learning in which a response is strengthened or weakened by its association with positive or negative consequences) (pg 22-23). We can either reinforce or punish, as a result to increase or decrease the unwanted desirable stimulus in the future. For example, if a toddler is watching a violent and aggressive video, then he would most likely have an altered view of the world, seeing it as more violent and aggressive than those who has not watched the video. As parents, we should not let young children watch violent video. Furthermore, adults who are surrounded by young children should be a positive and supportive role model because when children see good behavior being rewarded, they are likely to imitate that

In classrooms around the world, students are being held back from leaving class, eating lunch, or going to recess due to one reason; collective punishment. Collective punishment can be detrimental to students, and can even be overwhelming to children who did nothing wrong, “I started noticing just how devastating group punishments can be to the type of child who wants to please and is determined to follow the rules”, (Watson) as the students don’t understand why they are being punished because they didn’t do anything wrong. It can cause resentment in students who did nothing wrong to suddenly be punished for their peers’

Subconsciously most adults tend to believe that the easiest way to deal with a disobedient child or person is to physically harm. This answer of violence more times than not stems from the anger a student caused in doing wrong. Justification for corporal punishment originates from the past and is often the defense of pro-corporal punishment advocates. Physical punishment can be traced back to ancient times exemplified in Egypt, concerning the slaves that built the pyramids, these deep roots of physical punishment are often referred to as a form of proof that it works. To use Egyptian violence as an example is pushing the envelope of what corporal punishment is today, however the reaction to that punishment is similar because human nature is present in both time periods. Punishment in and of itself is not inheritably detrimental to a person’s development, however in the case of school corporal punishment the extra violent input into a child can produce unintended violence later in life.

An adult who practices punishment, controls a child externally. This communicates to a child that they are not able to control themselves, thus have no responsibility for their actions. Also, it can create in the child’s mind, the idea that they can commit a behavior so long as they do not get caught or are willing to accept the consequences. Behavior that is modified with punishment does not evolve from the understanding of what is expected in a society, but rather from fear. Since no understanding was obtained this will not

Throughout time, the use of punishment has changed drastically. Not only has the actual infliction of punishment changed, the reasoning behind this punishment has also changed. There have been numerous scholars, educators, and researchers that have presented various theories on the reasoning behind societal punishment. Some of these theories are closely similar, however some are drastically different. It is important to note that these theorists have broad perceptions that can be rooted back to specific time periods throughout history. Societal punishment is defined as, “punishment being a complex social institution, shaped by the ensemble of social and historical forces and having a range of effects that reach well beyond the population of offenders” (Garland, 1991).

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the

     Punishment is a process that decreases the likelihood of a behavior to occur again. This is not to be confused with negative reinforcement because it doesn't increase the likelihood of an occurrence. There are drawbacks to punishment. It doesn't teach an appropriate behavior to replace an inappropriate one. Also, intense punishment can lead to results such as passivity, fear, anxiety, or hostility. Finally, effects of punishment are sometimes temporary.

What are the purposes of punishment? Which do you consider to be the most important and why?

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].