7.The Educational Implications of Theories of Punishment

The three theories of punishment – retributive, reform and deterrent-attempt at classifying the outcome  expected through punishment. It is also a kind of justification for the infliction of punishment.

Educational implications : Retribution and Reform

* Retributive punishment responsibly given and responsibly received is likely to be a kind of catharsis.

* There is  however  the possibility that in the case of a bully ( a maladjusted child) the efficacy of retributive punishment  could be lost. The bully  may misinterpret the moral mentor’s resentment as a mere personal attack by a bigger man. This would then block the way for real reform.

* Sometimes retributive punishment which is intended as an expression of moral indignation may not convey anything to the guilty person if he strongly believes that  he  was always  in the right. Here  retributive punishment given by a teacher without a careful consideration  of the ‘deed’ could produce negative results.

* There is also a kind of illogicality in retributive punishment . One may  throw acid on the face of  another and may be punished. But is it possible to proportion the suffering of punishment to the wrong done? Further can the facial disfiguration of the injured party be lessened in any way by punishing? This implies  that the selection of the right  punishment as retribution becomes very difficult for the teacher.

* The ultimate purpose of retribution is to make the child understand  that punishment is given to  make him reform and repent. Here  one may be tempted to ask: “ Why not try some other  way  out  than inflict pain? Wouldn’t it be better if the teacher  advices the child and gives extra learning task  which has an utility value?”

Educational implication: Deterrent Punishment

 * Deterrent punishment appears simple and utilitarian and could  be used  by the  teacher to ensure punctuality, tidiness etc.

* It is possible for the  teacher to justify the use of  deterrent punishment if his ultimate aim is to get nuisances out of the way and develop in the child a  sense of personal responsibility.

* However the teacher has to  be discreet in the use of deterrent punishment on individuals who are prone  to question authority. If the teacher  persists in conditioning fear, such  individuals may  turn  cynics adept at avoiding detection. They may even  put  on a false show of virtuousness and become  undisciplined  the moment  control is removed.

* Deterrent punishment even emphases that if a boy  is  caught  telling a lie, he must  be punished  so  that   other  boys  may  not  tell lies in the future . Here one could very well

 ask : “Is it right to  punish one boy in order  that  the morals of others may be improved?”

 So far I have  focused on  retributive/reform punishment and deterrent punishment by  emphasizing  the irrationality involved in punishing the child. Incidentally, the  Behaviourists  believe that  “…. Punishment should not be employed  by teachers because students will soon learn to avoid the sources of punishment and may generate anger and fear reactions to people, places or things associated with punishment”

[Harold E. Mitzel (ed) Encyclopaedia of Educational Research (1941) Macmillan Publishing Company, New York: 1982 Vol 2 P 904]

But if the teacher  still persists on making use of any of the three types of punishment it may do  him good  if he follows a simple formula PUNISH

P- Personal History  … Is the offender one prone to mischief?

U- Utility Value of punishment…Will it reform the offender?

N-Is  it really Necessary…. ( It could be circumstances that made the child commit

       the offence)

I  - The teacher should be Impartial

S- Select the type of punishment from a wide range

H- Be Humane in administering. Ultimate good of the offending individual should

        be kept in view.