Talk:Punishment

An additional reason for punishment would be for the criminal to pay back the damage done to the victim or to society, in the form of fines or forced labor. I'm uncertain about terminology, however. Anyone...? —Herbee 10:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Probably "Restoration" - I'll add it. Evercat 17:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are there any existing pages discussing justifications for punishment? (Utilitarian v. Retributive, etc.) Typos 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reward and Punishment

From Gilbert Ryle's "Concept of Mind"; ISBN: 0226732967; p, 20

Sin: No Praise—No Blame.:

A second major crux points the same moral. Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws, it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a deterministic system, so the mental world must be a deterministic system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them. Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable concepts—unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem how to reconcile the hypothesis that minds are to be described in terms drawn from the categories of mechanics with the knowledge that higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with the behaviour of machines.

Yesselman 23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the psychological definition for punishmentwhicky1978 20:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Except your removed the part about behavior not changing. If it does not change then it isn't a punishment. For punishment to be classified as punishment then the behavior must decrease, otherwise it is just an aversive stimulus. Bignole 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse Template

Why is there an abuse template here? Punishment is not abuse. Typos 08:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, am removing it. TheGrappler 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about retribution vs. deterrence

Isn't the definition requirement of behaviour modification at odds with the Retribution section which says that the suffering from punishment can be construed as a good in itself? Retribution, in which I include vengeance, is intended to balance the evil without regard to whether it will change behaviour. Likewise, incapacitation as described is used when it is apparent that any punishment will be incapable of producing the desired behaviour modification. I looked you up here because of the relationship to free will. There it is argued whether it is proper to hold someone responsible for his misdeeds if the person is compelled by his nature rather than in possession of the free will to choose his actions. The answer depends in part on whether the goal of punishment is deterrence or vengeance. - JethroElfman 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The goal of punishment is never vengeance, if that is the case then you are not trying to punish the person, you are trying to get retribution for yourself or someone else. It doesn't matter what field of study you use, the correct definition of punishment means the behavior has to change. So, since vengeance is not built on decreasing the behavior, but on applying an equal concequence for personal satisfaction, it cannot be be considered punishment anyway. Punishment is all about deterrence. The retribution section shouldn't even be included unless it is noted that the "retribution" caused the behavior to decrease. This does not include castrating males that have raped, because you didn't decrease the behavior you have made it go extinct, and that isn't punishment. The retribution sections is making it out to see like punishment is a form of retribution, when it isn't. The goal of retribution is not to deter the persons behavior it is to get even, that isn't punishment, that is just a consequence, and shouldn't be apart of this page. Bignole 01:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To JethroElfman - there's no reason to believe that all the reasons for punishment must apply in any given case; indeed, this may be impossible if some of the reasons conflict with each other. That's why the section is called "possible reasons for punishment".

To Bignole - Retributive theories of punishment have a long history. What you propose if basically a POV deletion.... in fact the Stanford Encyclopedia entry begins with the line "Punishment in its very conception is now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice". [1] So you can't impose your own POV here. Evercat 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't POV, go check the fields of study....Psychology, Psychiatry, Child care...they all say the same thing that if a behavior is not decreased then it isn't punishment. The true definition of punishment lies in the decrease of the behavior. I should know because I've had plenty of college classes on the subject. Oh, that site is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...PHILOSOPHY. I've had plenty of classes in that area as well and trust me they don't run with the standard thinking. Anyway, if you read it isn't describing what punishment is medically, scientifically or even maternally defined as, it is talking about what punishment has become to be associated with and that is retribution. Well, when you look at today's prison system then you can see where they get his idea, because the majority of offenders in prison are repeat offenders so obviously they aren't really being punished for their crimes if they seem to keep commiting them. Bignole 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think it's you who's at odds with common sense. Certainly if you ask a lot of people why criminals should be punished many would simply say "because they deserve it". This IS one reason given by the man in the street, as well as politicians, religious leaders, philosophers, etc.

I think it's bizarre that you could say that if there's no change in behaviour (no rehabilitation) then it doesn't count as punishment. This certainly doesn't fit with the common English-language use of the word "punishment". A sentence such as "we punished him but he didn't change" makes perfect sense. Evercat 01:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because people are ignorant of what it really means to be "punishment" doesn't mean that Wikipedia should perpetuate the cycle of ignorance by elaborating on a subject that is not correct. I find it hard to believe that the "religous leader" condones punishment anyway...isn't the Catholic policy to just repent and you shall be forgiven? If we go by your definition that means that you are saying that the church wants us to kill all murderers, because hey "they deserve it". Right.Bignole 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defining punishment in that section, I'm offering a list of possible justifications for it. I'm not saying I agree with this particular justifcation (I don't, actually).

If you want a definition of punishment, it's something like "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." (this again is from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy article).

It's clear to me at least that the ordinary meaning of the word "punishment" implies nothing about what sort of effects it has on behaviour. When I look up "punish" in my Chambers 20th Century Dictionary here, I see it says "to cause (one) to suffer for an offence". Nothing about behaviour modification in my dictionary. Evercat 01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's my point, the true definition has been degraded to become something that it isn't. Doctors, psychologist, family therapists, social workers, child development professionals all say that if you administer a "punishment" and the subject never decreases behavior and continues then what you did obviously wasn't a punishment to that subject. Just beause you think it is punishing doesn't mean it actually is. Bignole 01:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm begining to understand you, but it sounds a bit behaviourist... :-) What I think you're saying is that, by definition, "punishment" == "stimulus that alters behaviour" or something similar... hmm... again I can only say that this isn't the definition commonly used by most people... Evercat 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but people tend to use the wrong definition for a lot of things. I do believe most people don't even know the actual definition of Schizophrenia and think that it is split personality. Society as a whole is very ignorant when it comes to the actual definition of things, that doesn't mean we should support it even though people think that it's not what it really is. Bignole 06:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Bignole, and agree with everyone else, that punishment does not necessarily have the goal of reform, but rather reform is one possible goal. If punishment only meant reform, then the phrase "capital punishment" becomes absurd...meaning to reform an individual by killing them. StuRat 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to create a separate article, perhaps called punishment (pyschology) to differentiate your usage of the term from the more common usage. Trying to get everyone to stop using the term to include retribution is not an option, as this would bring about the need to coin a new phrase for punishment and retribution viewed collectively. StuRat 07:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Capital punishment is the death penalty, how can you punish someone by killing them? Obviously it isn't punishment to them, because they aren't going to be able to do anything other than die afterward. What you people are doing is thinking that if you "consider" it a punishment then it must be a punishment. You are neglecting the POV of the person being "punished". If you kill them, or they never change, how can you consider it punishment? Punishment is designed to stop people from doing something they aren't supposed to. We put criminals in prison to stop them from breaking the law; we send our children to time out to stop them from acting up. Well, if the prisoner is released and breaks the law again, and again, and again; or, the child continues to act up even though you keep "punishing" them, they obviously do not consider whatever it is that you are doing a punishment. So, if they don't consider it punishment how can you? Bignole 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's the 'ultimate' punishment (whether justified is another matter!) in the sense that it's the only one absolutely guaranteed to stop the criminal from ever offending again, so society's primary goal is reached by crushing the individual which failed to conform on an essential point; furthermore proponents argue (a highly disputed point) that the alledged deterrent effect will stop other potential offenders preventively, which should the serve society's goal indirectly even better. Criminal-oriented purposes of punishment, such as educational, are of course thus pushed aside, but to be a punishment it does not have to conform with all. Your apparently exclusively psycho(logical) approach is getting in the way again, while it is a fairly recent and never dominant factor in the mind of decisionmakers, punishees and public at large. Fastifex 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "ultimate punshiment", Hitler. You wanna start a master race, too? If you physically stop the behavior by killing the person that doesn't mean that it was a true punishment. You're problem is that you were brought up in the ignorance that punishment is anything that is given to you to get you to stop what you are doing, whether you stop or not. That isn't correct. Oh, and the fact that our prisons are overcrowded proves that we obviously are not detering anyone from future crimes. Nice try, but my "psycho logic" isn't fairly recent. By YOU ending the behavior yourself it doesn't mean that it was a punishment, because the prison didn't do it you did when you ended his life. There wasn't a decrease in behavior, there was an extinction of beavior. If I'm allow my "pshycho logic" to get in the way, then you are allowing your society produced ignorance get in the way. Cause I notice that you had no retort for the fact that society, for the most part, is ignorant of the true definitions are many things, but, of course punishment couldn't be one of those. Because we have parents beating their kids every day, and that obviously stops their kids from doing what they shouldn't. So, if the point of punishment is not the decrease behavior then what is it? I know that when I was a kid, and I was punished, I always thought it was because I didn't something my mother didn't want me to do and that I shouldn't do it again. Hhmm..that sounds kind of psychological, and yet that was when I was a kid. I guess I was part of the society that didn't go with your "societal common definition". Bignole 14:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In language, a word means what the majority thinks it means, period. Many words have multiple meanings, some original, some derived by extensions. It's quite clear to the majority of us here that punishment includes retribution for most people, hence that IS what it means. An academic telling us all it means something else will not change it's meaning. StuRat 23:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So, let's get this logic down. Since the majority of people think that schzephrenia is split personality, then that obviously means that it is. Oh, so if the majority of people say that the Earth is flat then it must, or that the Earth is the center of the universe....but we know that they were wrong too. Wow, it seems the majority of people believed a lot of things that were wrong, why would it be any different. If an academic telling you it all means something else will not change it's meaning, then why do we believe the Sun is the center of the universe and that the Earth is round? Retribution is a motive for punishment, it is not punishment. When you are punishing someone to make yourself feel better that isn't punishment. They learn nothing from the experience so it defeats the purpose. Oh, and the "majority" that you speak of is only two people, because only two people have expressed an opinion on here over this. Bignole 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I count two here plus everyone who edited the article to include modes of punishment which aren't aimed at altering behaviour. On the other side, there is only you. That makes the majority clearly against you. And don't try confusing what I said by implying that I said "whatever the majority thinks is true". It does not, in general. This only applies to language. As for schizophrenia (please learn how to spell it, BTW) meaning split personality, if the majority uses it that way, then that is a valid meaning, distinct from the formal psychological meaning. StuRat 23:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Aww, did I touch a nerve? The majority of people that edit this article didn't unanimously agree on all this information, and if it takes one lone person to point out the inconsistency in the meaning then so be it. You haven't been able to counter anything. Your problem is that you are picking and choosing your definitions. Oh, and as I do believe my eyes don't fool me, but retribution is listed on "possible reasons for punishment", meaning that obviously someone agrees with me, because I didn't change it to that. As for schizophrenia (I have only spelled in incorrectly once, and I have used it twice, BTW) that is a medical diagnosis and society cannot say that there is another meaning for it, when doctors say that it isn't. Psychologist do not diagnose someone with Schizophrenia, medical doctors do. It just proves the ignorance of society when they think that it is split personality disorder, when it isn't. It also seems that every time I provide you with an argument against your claim (check the above posts) you always seem to return to "the majority says.." Is that your only argument? Bignole 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument included dictionary definitions plus the Stanford school of philosophy. I will add one that I found on Dictionary.com which quotes Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary, "It is not primarily intended for the reformation of criminals". They explicitly state that the purpose of punishment is to balance the crime which was committed. Perhaps it is an issue of context. Psychology and child care are concerned with the effects on the punishee. Philosophy allows greater discussion of the motives of the punisher. That's how I got here -- because it occurred to me that punishment based on vengeance is immoral (although Easton's makes it look like such a notion is heresy). - JethroElfman 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that society makes a point to express their own beliefs in something that is already defined. Schizophrenia, for example, has always been defined the same, but society takes the definition and draws their own conclusions. They see hallucination, paranoia and delusions as what someone with split personality experiences, which that is not the case. The same goes for punishment. It wasn't intended to just seek retribution, but because people see it has retribution for a crime (if you are speaking of criminals) committed against their family then they assume that punishment isn't about decreasing behavior but really about making sure someone gets what is coming to them. Society likes to destort things to best fit their philosophies, and eye for an eye seems to be more prevalent than rehabilitation. Even most criminologist don't consider prison punishment because most criminals never get rehabilitated. Bignole 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The articles under penology discuss the issues further, which is what I came looking for in the first place. They don't seem to have a problem with the semantics of punishment. See for example this quote from Retributive justice, "the need for a criminal to be punished is a requirement that comes from basic fairness and justice and not necessarily as a result of deterrence." - JethroElfman 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say prison wasn't punishment, because it is punishment for some, but, when the majority of prisoners are repeat offenders how much punishment is it really to them? Also, you have to remember that you are reading an article that was edited by people that are probably not experts in the subject matter, as is the case with just about every article in wikipedia. I'm not removing the validity of the article, just that you have to realize that people's POV (not matter how much you attempt to remove them) and their misconceptions tend to bleed into what they write. If someone doesn't come along and correct it then it goes without saying that more people are going to believe what they read. Anyway, the point of punishment has always been to deter behavior. Even when you execute you are attempting to deter future behavior of others. My point is that retribution is not punishment. It can be a motive for punishment, but it itself isn't punishment. Time out is a punishment, removal of privileges is a punishment, retribution is a expression of a thought process and cannot be punishment. Retribution is not an act, it's describing a motive. I punch someone for punching me. I was seeking retribution, but what I attempted to do was punish the other person for hitting me. If they hit me again I obviously didn't punish them because they didn't feel like it was a problem. Bignole 03:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to enter this debate, but on the question of the relationship between punishment, retribution and deterrence there is in the United Kingdom some statutory authority. In Scotland, when prisoners are sentenced to life imprisonment the court sets the "punishment part", a minimum period that must be spent in custody "to satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence".--George Burgess 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain that last bit a little more clearly?Bignole 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Locking Up Children

Is locking up your children in a room or whatever considered abuse or is it accepted as valid non-violent punishment? Zachorious 01:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would probably fall under Time Out, even if they are locking the door. Time Out doesn't have to be in a corner. Bignole 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Info?

The rambling description of the boer punishment in this article seems totally out of place. Perhaps it should be in its own article.

So if punishment is more appropriately dubbed vengeance, is it child abuse? 206.131.49.107 14:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)a guy

Sounds relevant to me, IMHO.

Latest edit

Being challenged to a duel is not a punishment - it's an attempt to extract "satisfaction" or "honour". When an executioner punishes a criminal, there's not much chance of him being killed himself. AngryStan 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Etymology

It struck me that Punire might come from Punic, in relation to what the romans did to the carthaginains at the end of the 3rd punic war. Does anybody have anything to say about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.118.42 (talk • contribs)

If you've got a source, add the info to the page. WLU 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Negative Punishment With A Rare Or One-Time Thing

Could negative punishment also mean taking away a yearly tradition or something that only happens once? I thought of this as an example: "Let's say a friend or member of your family invited you to a party, but your parents won't let you go because you made a false alarm 911 call." 66.191.115.61 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)66.191.115.61

Yes. WLU (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

Would like to point out that punishment is not necessarily in response to a misdeed. OED definitions

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/punish?view=uk

• verb 1 impose a penalty on (someone) for an offence. 2 impose a penalty on someone for (an offence). 3 treat harshly or unfairly.

82.5.213.54 (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Added "usually" to reflect this. 82.5.213.54 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ownership and editing

"Garbage" is not really an effective description, and it is actually vague. Especially, for a well suited lead for this article. Apparently the previous lead has the support of three other editors. The pervious lead read as follows:

Punishment is the practice of imposing something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles.

One other editor, Stevertigo, persists in reverting the supported lead for a lone interpretation of what an overview for this article should say. This is over-riding the implicit support of other editors, for the view of one editor. This appears to indicate WP:OWN (ownership). Especially when flippantly discounting the above lead as "garbage", and just as flippantly reverting the more accurate lead. The current lead has a narrow scope compared to the broad scope encompassed by the above reverted lead. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I created a new section just below the introduction and placed his contribution to this article in that section. I think it is well written, and certainly worthy of inclusion at this time. However, this content belongs in a more narrowly defined section, rather than attempting to be a presentation for the article as a whole. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's revision begins with "In society, punishment is the concept of imposing negative consequences upon persons (cf. legal person) who commit destructive actions (ie. crimes)." and then elaborates further on about the criminal justice system. I agree that this revision does not summarize this article per wp:lead. There is more to this article than simply the criminal justice concepts and children punished for disobedience are not necessarily committing "destructive actions" nor would they be characterized as "committing" anything. Stevertigo's revision is idealistic (as if there are no other actions punished other than destructive ones and by anyone other than society) and is better suited for a section on criminal justice. Furthermore, a more comprehensive legal section or sections would also include civil reparations. --Modocc (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The recent addition of "Divine punishment" and its description in the lede seems to be inappropriately narrow. Also from which reliable source is this derived? The lede really needs to be changed ----Steve Quinn (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

agree re "destructive". Also, a hallmark of punishment is that it be administered by some entity deemed to have the authority to do so. Otherwise it is not distinguishable from things like retribution and the "punishment" boxers administer to each other (a sense that should also be properly noted in the article).--JimWae (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been patiently waiting for Stevertigo to respond to our feedback, and the fact that he changed the previous lede, which has the support of consensus. I think he has been given enough time. So with the support of the consensus already established I am changing the lede back to the more appropriate lede. It is more appropriate because it is much broader in scope, and has consensus behind it - it is as follows:

• Punishment is the practice of imposing something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles.

The above also has the added benefit of being simpler than Stevertigo's amalgamation. The amalgamation which replaced this lede can be placed in other areas with a narrower scope. I agree there should be a section on criminal justice and perhaps more comprehensive legal section. Furthermore WP:LEAD "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". Stevertigo's lede (or lead) does not do this. The above lede appears to provide a sufficient overview for this article, and with only a few lines. Also keep in mind Stevertigo's rationale for replacing this lede (with his own creation), is that it is "garbage". I have looked through Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I could not find WP:GARBAGE. I wonder if he could elaborate on this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes to this article this week - developing the lede section to a substantial degree - before Modocc, JimWae, and Steve Quinn took any interest in this article or topic. Modocc followed me here after engaging me in debates on theology, while JimWae and Steve Quinn followed me here from articles related to the subject of time.

In spite of claims by Steve Quinn, the previous lede had no consensus or support. The lede which preceded mine was:

"Punishment is the practice of imposing something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles."

..language which was not only vague, but poorly written: The "imposition" of "something negative" on "a person or animal or property" part, alone disqualifies it from being acceptable as is, and the list of crimes "disobedience, defiance" and things "morally wrong" makes it at best draft writing in need of a rewrite. It seems strange then that these other editors have added sources after its writing in the pretense of supporting such inane and unusable text. That SQ would add to this the claim the above inaneness to be the "consensus" - in spite of having never worked on this article before I came along - means of course that he's not only here to harass, but to be completely disingenuous. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)