Punishment

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant on a subject as a response to some unwanted behavior or disobedience that the subject has displayed.

Word history

The word is the abstract substantivation of the verb to punish, which is recorded in English since 1340, deriving from Old French puniss-, an extended form of the stem of punir "to punish," from Latin punire "inflict a penalty on, cause pain for some offense," earlier poenire, from poena "penalty, punishment".

Colloquial use of to punish for "to inflict heavy damage or loss" is first recorded in 1801, originally in boxing; for punishing as "hard-hitting" is from 1811.

Definitions

In common usage, the word "punishment" might be described as "an authorized imposition of deprivations -- of freedom or privacy or other goods to which the person otherwise has a right, or the imposition of special burdens -- because the person has been found guilty of some criminal violation, typically (though not invariably) involving harm to the innocent." (according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

The most common applications are in legal and similarly 'regulated' contexts, being the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed, i.e. for transgressing a law or command (including prohibitions) given by some authority (such as an educator, employer or supervisor, public or private official).

In the field of Psychology, however, a more restrictive technical definition for "punishment" is the reduction of a behavior via a stimulus which is applied ("positive punishment") or removed ("negative punishment"). Making an offending student lose recess or suspension are examples of negative punishment, while chores or corporal punishments are examples of positive (i.e. active) punishment. If the offending behavior of the subject does not decrease then it is not considered punishment.

Scope of application

The person who undergoes punishment may, depending on the context, be called punishee, client (as in psychology), or, more from the viewpoint of the discipliner, offender, culprit, bottom in BDSM etc.

Most often, criminals are punished judicially, by fines, corporal punishment or custodial sentences such as prison; detainees risk further punishments for breaches of internal rules.
Children, pupils and other trainees are also punished by their educators or instructors (mainly parents, guardians, or teachers, tutors and coaches). The same used to apply to wives and unmarried daughters as they were not legally emancipated from 'paternal' (or succeeding marital) discipline.
Slaves, domestic and other servants used to be punishable by their masters; in fact, even modern employees can still be subject to a contractual form of fine or demotion.
Most hierarchical organizations, such as military and police forces, or even churches, still apply quite rigid internal discipline, even with a judicial system of their own (court martial, canonical courts).
Punishment may also be applied on moral, especially religious, grounds, as in penance (which is voluntary) or imposed in a theocracy with a religious police (as in a strict Islamic state like Iran or under the Taliban) or (though not a true theocracy) by Inquisition.
In a wider sense, often termed penalty, punishments can be incurred for infringing the rules of a game, as in sports, hazing (e.g., in paddle games) etcetera. These include:
- Being sent off or sent to the bench ("sin bin"—time in sin-bin varies from game to game: 45 seconds in water polo, 2–10 minutes in ice hockey, 10 minutes in rugby, etc.), or even barred from playing for the whole match or even longer (as with red cards in soccer)
- Collective punishments, which don't only effect the offender but the whole team, such as penalty points, a shot at the goal for the opponent side, not being allowed to replace a player send to the bench.

History and rationale

The progress of civilization has resulted in a vast change alike in the theory and in the method of punishment. In primitive society punishment was left to the individuals wronged or their families, and was vindictive or retributive: in quantity and quality it would bear no special relation to the character or gravity of the offence.

Gradually there would arise the idea of proportionate punishment, of which the characteristic type is an eye for an eye. The second stage was punishment by individuals under the control of the state, or community; in the third stage, with the growth of law, the state took over the primitive function and provided itself with the machinery of justice for the maintenance of public order. Henceforward crimes are against the state, and the exaction of punishment by the wronged individual is illegal (compare Lynch Law). Even at this stage the vindictive or retributive character of punishment remains, but gradually, and specially after the humanist movement under thinkers like Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, new theories begin to emerge. Two chief trains of thought have combined in the condemnation of primitive theory and practice. On the one hand the retributive principle itself has been very largely superseded by the protective and the reformative; on the other punishments involving bodily pain have become objectionable to the general sense of society. Consequently corporal and even capital punishment occupy a far less prominent position, and tend everywhere to disappear. It began to be recognized also that stereotyped punishments, such as belong to penal codes, fail to take due account of the particular condition of an offence and the character and circumstances of the offender. A fixed fine, for example, operates very unequally on rich and poor.

Modern theories date from the 18th century, when the humanitarian movement began to teach the dignity of the individual and to emphasize his rationality and responsibility. The result was the reduction of punishment both in quantity and in severity, the improvement of the prison system, and the first attempts to study the psychology of crime and to distinguish between classes of criminals with a view to their improvement (see CRIME; PRISON; CHILDRENS COURTS; JUVENILE OFFENDERS).

These latter problems are the province of criminal anthropology and criminal sociology, sciences so called because they view crime as the outcome of anthropological viz. social conditions. The law breaker is himself a product of social evolution and cannot be regarded as solely responsible for his disposition to transgress. Habitual crime is thus to be treated as a disease. Punishment can, therefore, be justified only in so far as it either protects society by removing temporarily or permanently one who has injured it, or acting as a deterrent, or aims at the moral regeneration of the criminal. Thus the retributive theory of punishment with its criterion of justice as an end in itself gives place to a theory which regards punishment solely as a means to an end, utilitarian or moral, according as the common advantage or the good of the criminal is sought.

Michel Foucault describes in detail the evolution of punishment from hanging, drawing and quartering of medieval times to the modern systems of fines and prisons. He sees a trend in criminal punishment from vengeance by the King to a more practical, utilitarian concern for deterrence and rehabilitation. A particularly harsh punishment is sometimes said to be draconian, after Draco, the lawgiver of the classical polis of Athens. But as the adjective Spartan still testifies, its wholly militarized rival Sparta was the harshest a state of law can be on its own citizens, e.g., crypteia. In operant conditioning, punishment is the presentation of a stimulus contingent on a response which results in a decrease in response strength (as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of response). The effectiveness of punishment in suppressing the response depends on many factors, including the intensity of the stimulus and the consistency with which the stimulus is presented when the response occurs. In parenting, additional factors that increase the effectiveness of punishment include a verbal explanation of the reason for the punishment and a good relationship between the parent and the child.

Types of punishments

Punishment can be divided into Positive punishment (the application of an aversive stimulus, such as pain) and Negative punishment (the removal or denial of a desired object, condition, or aversive stimulus).

Judicial and similar, i.e., for crimes

Socio-economical punishments:

fines or loss of income
confiscation
demotion, suspension or expulsion (especially in a strict hierarchy, such as military or clergy)
restriction or loss of civic and other rights, in the extreme even civil death

physical punishments (see that article) :

corporal punishment s.s.

Though the words physical and corporal simply derive from the Latin viz. Greek words for body, CP is often used more specifically to refer only to various forms of painful beating on body parts, usually taking the form of whipping or caning with various implements, and markings such as branding or mutilations such as amputation and castration. Legality of these varies from country to country. However it can be defined more widely:

capital punishment is the most extreme form of punishment as it ends all bodily functions for good (used by a substantial number of countries, ironically including some that declare mere beating inhumane— see use of death penalty worldwide)
various uncomfortable positions, such as in too confined spaces or being tied down long in an unnatural position that puts muscles under increasingly painful stress, e.g., lying with the English imposed on Boer boys imprisoned on Bermuda 1899–1902 in a cruel experiment of Anglicizing 'reeducation': "they were made to lie down on their backs on the ground with one army blanket beneath and one on top, their outstretched legs tied by the feet to pegs hammered into the ground, while their arms were stretched out above their heads, with their hands manacled and also tied to a peg in the ground. In this excruciating position they had to spend the night before receiving the following morning the prescribed number of whip lashes across the bare back while naked and held over a barrel. One Tommy held his ankles, another would clasped his hands together behind the boy's head and pushed it downwards" for such 'rebellious' misdeeds as speaking and singing their native Afrikaans (condensed translation from Penkoppe van die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog of the Second War for Independence 1899–1902 by Pets Marais)
custodial sentences include imprisonment and other forms of forced detention (e.g., involuntary institutional psychiatry) and hard labor are in fact also physical punishments, even if no actual beatings are in force internally; note that Behavioral Psychologists do not consider prison a sound punishment because most criminals are repeat offenders, thus, their behavior has not changed. If the behavior does not change then any stimulus that was presented is not punishment just aversive.
forms of deprivation of sleep, food etcetera, though these are often unofficial or accessory
excessive physical efforts such as prolonged calisthenics or holding up a heavy object
banishment, restraining order
clinical castration for sexual assault is being tried in a few countries but may lead to charges of eugenics, since the individual is rendered infertile as a result

public humiliation often combines social elements with corporal punishment, and indeed often punishments from two or more categories are combined (especially when these are meant reinforce each-other's effect) as in the logic of penal harm.

For children

Examples of punishments imposed by educators (parents, guardians or teachers etc.; traditions differ greatly in time, place and cultural sphere; some are considered illegal abuse in certain countries) include:

corporal punishment as above - mainly spanking in various mode (banned in some countries, in others even prescribed by law) and uncomfortable and/or humiliating positions, e.g. kneeling, holding a heavy object up (also banned by certain legislators); as many educators saw these banned or disapprove themselves in some societies, there is a shift in these to such alternatives as:
time-outs such as corner-time or even locking up in a dark place
writing lines or an imposed essay (often on a 'fitting' subject)
mild forms of custodial sentences
- detention, often combined with tasks like studying, extra homework etc.
- grounding in general or specific refusal of permission to participate in some fun activity or to see a friend (usually seen as a bad influence)
temporary removal of privileges (e.g. denial of treats such as dessert, favorite meal, even no telephone, TV or computer use)
confiscation (usually temporary) of a toy or other personal item; separation from a pet
punishment haircuts (either very short or shaved)
elements of restrictive or imposed dress code
extra chores
fining, usually by deduction from the allowance

Even the above have come under criticism in recent times. Arguments against non-violent modification of behavior include the issue of ethics, and whether your will should be forced on your children. Taking Children Seriously is a way to address the concerns mentioned in this paragraph.

Other

Possible reasons for punishment

See also: Criminal justice

There are many possible reasons that might be given to justify or explain why someone ought to be punished; here follows a broad outline of typical, possibly contradictory justifications.

Deterrence

Deterrence means dissuading someone from future wrongdoing, by making the punishment severe enough that the benefit gained from the offense is outweighed by the cost (and probability) of the punishment.

Deterrence is a very common reason given for why someone should be punished. However, it is sometimes claimed that using punishment as a deterrent has the fundamental flaw that human nature tends to ignore the possibility of punishment until they are caught, and actually can be attracted even more to the 'forbidden fruit', or even for various reasons glorify the punishee, e.g. admiring a fellow for 'taking it like a man'.

Rehabilitation

Some punishment includes work to reform and rehabilitate the wrongdoer so that they will not commit the offense again. This is different from deterrence, in that the goal here is to change the offender's attitude to what they have done, and make them come to accept that their behaviour was wrong.

Incapacitation

In the prison system, imprisonment has the effect of confining prisoners, physically preventing them from committing crimes against those outside, i.e. protecting the community. The most dangerous criminals may be sentenced to life imprisonment, or even to irreparable alternatives -the death penalty, or castration of sexual offenders- for this reason of the common good.

Restoration

For minor offences, punishment may take the form of the offender "righting the wrong"; for example, a vandal might be made to clean up the mess he has made. In more serious cases, punishment in the form of fines and compensation payments may also be considered a sort of "restoration".

Retributive justice, or Retribution

Retribution is the practice of "getting even" with a wrongdoer - the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as good in itself, even if it has no other benefits. One reason for societies to include this judicial element is to diminish the perceived need for street justice, blood revenge, and vigilantism. A specific way to elaborate this concept in the very punishment is the mirror punishment (the more literal applications of "an eye for an eye"), a penal form of 'poetic justice' which reflects the nature or means of the crime in the means of (mainly corporal) punishment.

Honoring Values

Punishment can be seen to honor the values codified in law. In this view, the value of human life is seen to be honored by the punishment of a murderer. Proponents of capital punishment have been known to base their position on this concept.

There are some commentators such as Chuck Colson who accept this view as valid but believe that the fallibility of human justice systems should preclude using it as a justification.

Sources and References

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
- Punishment
- Legal Punishment
Etymology OnLine
Further reading:
- Bebin, Xavier. Pourquoi punir? l'approche utilitariste de la sanction pénale, L'Harmattan, 2006.
- Brooks, Thom. 'Corlett on Kant, Hegel, and Retribution', Philosophy 76 (2001): 561-80.
- Brooks, Thom. 'Kant's Theory of Punishment', Utilitas 15 (2003): 206-24.
- Brooks, Thom. 'T.H. Green's Theory of Punishment', History of Political Thought 24 (2003): 685-701.
- Brooks, Thom. 'Retributivist Arguments against Capital Punishment', Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2004): 188-97.
- Brooks, Thom. 'Is Hegel a Retributivist?' Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 49/50 (2004): 113-26.
- Brooks, Thom. 'Kantian Punishment and Retributivism', Ratio 18 (2005): 237-45.
- Burgh, R.W. 'Do the Guilty Deserve Punishment?' Journal of Philosophy 79 (1982): 193-210.
- Cottingham, John. 'Varieties of Retribution', Philosophical Quarterly 29 (1979): 238-46.
- Davis, Michael. 'How to Make the Punishment Fit the Crime', Ethics 93 (1983): 726-52.
- Duff, R.A. Trials and Punishments Cambridge University Press, 1986.
- Duff, R.A. Criminal Attempts Clarendon 1996.
- Duff, R.A. Punishment, COmmunication, and Community OXford University Press 2001.
- Duff, R.A. 'Answering for Crime', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (2006): 85-111.
- Ewin, R.E. 'What is Wrong with Killing People?' Philosophical Quarterly 22 (1972): 126-39.
- Farrell, D.M. 'The Justification of General Deterrence', Philosophical Review 94 (1985): 367-94.
- Feinberg, Joel. The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, 4 vols. Oxford University Press, 1984-88.
- Hampton, Jean. 'The Moral Education Theory of Punishment', Philosophy & Public Affairs 13 (1984): 208-38.
- Honderich, Ted. Punishment: The Supposed Justifications. Penguin, 1969.
- Husak, Douglas. 'Why Punish the Deserving?' Nous 26 (1992): 447-64.
- Husak, Douglas. 'The Criminal Law as Last Resort', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24 (2004): 207-35.
- Kahan, Dan. 'The Secret Ambition of Deterrence', Harvard Law Review 113 (1999): 413-500.
- Morris, Herbert. 'Persons and Punishment', Monist 52 (1968): 475-501.
- Nino, C.S. 'A Consensual Theory of Punishment', Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (1983): 289-306.
- Nussbaum, Martha. 'Equity and Mercy', Philosophy & Public Affairs 22 (1993): 83-125.
- Simmons, A.J. 'Locke and the Right to Punish', Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (1983): 175-204.
- Walker, Nigel. Why Punish? Oxford University Press, 1991.

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Punishment