Results for punishment
On this page:
 
Dictionary:

punishment

  (pŭn'ĭsh-mənt) pronunciation
n.
    1. The act or an instance of punishing.
    2. The condition of being punished.
  1. A penalty imposed for wrongdoing: “The severity of the punishment must . . . be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated” (Simone Weil).
  2. Rough handling; mistreatment: These old skis have taken a lot of punishment over the years.

 
 
Thesaurus: punishment

noun

    Something, such as loss, pain, or confinement, imposed for wrongdoing: castigation, chastisement, correction, discipline, penalty. See reward/punish/deserve.

 
Antonyms: punishment

n

Definition: penalty
Antonyms: encouragement, exoneration, pardon, praise, protection, reward


 

The deliberate infliction of harm, by authorized agents, on a person, in response to a breach of rules by which, it is claimed, the person is governed, and for which he or she is held responsible. Because of the concentrated coercive power at its disposal, state punishment has been a primary concern of political and legal theory. Here the rules are the laws of the state; the legitimacy of the legal system as a whole is contestable, as is the moral obligation to obey particular laws; and the purposes of the punishment may be variously understood. These purposes are usually identified as deterrence and retribution. Although denunciation, prevention, and reform are also mentioned, many theorists would reject these as objects of punishment (rather than possible side-effects or opportunities presented by it). Some accounts of state punishment define it as deliberate infliction of harm on a person who is guilty of breaking the law, in response to that breach, ruling out the possibility that an innocent person may be unjustly punished. Although this is unhelpful, justifiable punishment requires that there be compelling reasons to suppose the person to be punished is guilty; a realistic account of the practice must allow for the possibility of error, even if it hopes to minimize it. The connection between the breach of the rules and the person punished depends upon a conception of responsibility, which is again liable to be controversial, either because of different understandings of the ‘causes’ of a particular individual's behaviour or because of disagreement about the reasonableness of holding X (e.g. a parent, an army officer) responsible for what Y (e.g. a child, a soldier) did.

— Andrew Reeve

 

The deliberate infliction of harm upon somebody, or the withdrawal of some good from them, by an authority, in response to their being supposed to have committed some offence. Sometimes punishment may be inflicted upon an animal, or ritualistically upon an inanimate thing. The philosophical problem with punishment is that since it involves the infliction of some kind of harm, or deprivation of some kind of good, it transgresses normal ethical boundaries, and therefore requires specific ethical justification. The major elements in such a justification have been felt to be: (i) retribution: if a person has inflicted some harm on another, then justice requires retribution (see also justice, retributive); (ii) reparation: if a person has harmed another, then he owes a duty of reparation to the victim, which his punishment provides; (iii) reformation: the harm inflicted teaches the criminal to behave better in the future; (iv) deterrence: knowledge of the penalties deters potential offenders; (v) prevention: an offender who is deprived of opportunity (e.g. by being imprisoned) cannot repeat the offence. Features (iii) and (iv) are often conjoined with (v), in an indirect utilitarian approach, in which it is argued that a society with an institution of punishment in place will enjoy better conditions of life than any without it. A thought more popular among judges than philosophers is that punishment simply expresses society's revulsion at some kind of behaviour, and needs no other defence. The difficulty is that judges are often revolted by too many things, such as long hair, youth, and poverty.

 

An unpleasant stimulus presented immediately following a particular behaviour. Punishment is applied to weaken the response to which it is associated. Compare negative reinforcement, reward.

 

Punishment, in law, is the official infliction of discomfort on an individual as a response to the individual's commission of a criminal offense. That general definition invites attention to two related matters: the purposes for which punishment is visited upon an offender and the forms that punishment takes.

The purposes of punishment in American tradition cannot be determined from surviving records or inferred from experience but must be culled from the academic literature. That literature explains that government has punished offenders for reasons that fall roughly into utilitarian and nonutilitarian categories. Utilitarian objectives have in common the desire to prevent or to reduce crime. For example, government punishes criminals officially in order to preempt private retaliation by mob violence (vengeance), to restrain an offender while he or she undergoes discipline (incapacitation), to discourage an offender from misbehaving in the future (specific deterrence), to discourage others by making an example of the individual (general deterrence), and to dissuade an offender from committing more crimes by reforming him or her in some manner (rehabilitation). Nonutilitarian objectives are less eclectic. Governments punish an offender because the offender deserves to be punished for his or her crime and should be made to atone for it (retribution). The underlying Kantian idea is that a criminal has gained an advantage over others by virtue of his or her offense. That advantage must be eliminated via punishment to restore the proper balance of benefits and burdens in society.

The forms of punishment employed historically are fairly well documented. The colonists chiefly employed monetary fines and corporal punishments. They tortured slaves brutally and, outside the institution of slavery, they executed miscreants even for minor crimes. Offenders who were not hanged were whipped, branded, pilloried, ducked in water, placed in stocks, or banished from the colony (run out of town on a rail). It is difficult to say whether any of those punishments was consciously imposed to achieve utilitarian or nonutilitarian goals. Flogging slaves was part of the terror of slavery itself. Punishments of free colonists by public shaming may have had either utilitarian or nonutilitarian rationales. Punishments groomed to particular offenses may have been primarily retributive. Branding Hester Prynne with a scarlet letter A may have condemned her misbehavior more than it discouraged future illicit sexual liaisons.

Late in the eighteenth century the Quakers in Philadelphia conceived the notion that incarceration could substitute for the death penalty and physical torture. In the antebellum period custodial detention gradually became the preferred means of punishment in most states. The Pennsylvania Quakers' rationale was utilitarian. They meant to confine convicts in penal institutions to "reform" them and thus to reduce the risk that they would commit additional criminal acts. The very name of the Quaker institutions, "penitentiaries," conveyed the message that their purpose was moral reform. Other proponents of incarceration expressed similar ambitions. As penal facilities of varying kinds were established over the next century, the theoretical justification was, by contemporary standards, humane: the ideal of rehabilitating citizens so they might become law-abiding and productive members of the developing industrial society.

The "rehabilitative ideal" dominated American penology throughout most of the twentieth century, implicating a variety of familiar policies, including the indeterminate sentence, probation and parole, vocational training, and educational programs for inmates. The working idea was that an offender should be incarcerated not for any fixed term but for as long as necessary to ensure rehabilitation. During and after confinement the offender should receive "treatment" to help foster a normal, law-abiding life. In 1949 the Supreme Court recognized that rehabilitation had become an important goal of criminal jurisprudence. In 1972 the National Council of Crime and Delinquency declared that convicts should be subject to reformative programs befitting their individual characteristics and circumstances.

Within a few years, however, many Americans discarded rehabilitation and embraced instead the competing idea that criminal offenders should be punished because they deserve it and for no other reason, pragmatic or humanitarian. Analysts have offered three explanations for the rapid shift to retribution. Critics on the right argued that rehabilitative programs rendered incarceration insufficiently punitive, critics on the left contended that rehabilitative programs constituted unacceptable ideological indoctrination, and professional penologists conceded that rehabilitation could not be shown to reduce recidivism.

Retribution's hegemony was not complete at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Imprisonment continued to serve forward-looking, preventive goals and conventionally was understood to be justified at least in part on utilitarian grounds. For example, prison terms for young offenders were commonly defended as a means of incapacitating young men during their most dangerous years. Retribution in 2002 is not necessarily regarded as meaningless or ineffective. When offenders are given sentences commensurate with their crimes rather than with their own individual circumstances and "need" for rehabilitation, individuals who committed roughly the same offenses received roughly the same penalties. That result in turn conforms to the American predilection for equality. After 1980 the federal government and many states adopted sentencing guidelines grounded in the idea that like crimes should be treated alike. In the punitive atmosphere of the times, however, the sentence for any given offense tended to be harsh. Moreover, repeat offenders often received enhanced sentences. Thus sentencing guidelines made prison terms not only more uniform but uniformly long, especially in nonviolent drug cases. Lengthy sentences to distant penal facilities in turn revived the colonial utilitarian policy of banishment.

The Eighth Amendment bars "cruel and unusual punishments." The Supreme Court has held that physical punishments once commonly accepted may become "cruel and unusual" as society's standards of decency evolve. Apart from the death penalty, corporal punishments are extremely rare and are probably unconstitutional when they occur. Political support for the death penalty has ebbed occasionally, but the Supreme Court has declined to hold that capital punishment necessarily violates the Eighth Amendment. Instead, the Court has held that the Constitution limits the death penalty to certain classes of homicides committed by especially culpable offenders.

Bibliography

Allen, Francis A. The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1979.

Mitford, Jessica. Kind and Usual Punishment: The Prison Business. New York: Knopf, 1973.

Rotman, Edgardo. Beyond Punishment: A New View of the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders. New York: Greenwood, 1990.

Von Hirsch, Andrew. Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments: Report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration. New York: Hill and Wang, 1976.

 
Law Encyclopedia: Punishment
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

The imposition of hardship in response to misconduct.

Punishments authorized in modern U.S. law include community service, monetary fines, forfeiture of property, restitution to victims, confinement in jail or prison, and death.

Some civil sanctions are punitive in nature. The primary aim in most civil cases is to compensate the victim. However, a judge or jury may assess punitive damages against a party in a civil case if that party's conduct was especially wicked. Punitive damages are intended to punish a party or set an example for similar wrongdoers. Though onerous, punitive damages in a civil case do not carry with them the same stigma attached to criminal punishment.

Human transgressions have been punished in various ways throughout history. The standard punishments in ancient Greek and Roman societies were death, slavery, mutilation (corporal punishment), imprisonment, or banishment. Some punishments were especially creative. In ancient Rome, for example, a person who murdered a close relative was enclosed in a sack with a cock, a viper, a dog, and a monkey, and then cast into the sea.

The ancient punishments were brought to England. Until the nineteenth century, the death penalty, or capital punishment, was imposed in England for more than two hundred different crimes. Most of these crimes were petty violations, such as pickpocketing or swindling. A defendant could be hanged, burned at the stake, or beheaded. In some cases the process of death was drawn out. A person found guilty of treason, for example, was placed on a rack and stretched, hung until not quite dead, then disemboweled, beheaded, and quartered (cut into four pieces).

Until the nineteenth century, corporal punishment in England could consist of whipping, branding, or the cutting off of a body part. Noses, ears, hands, fingers, toes, and feet were all subject to removal for criminal acts. Often the body part sliced off was the part thought responsible for the act. A pickpocket, for example, might have a hand cut off, and a spy might lose an ear, tongue, or eye. Corporal punishment could be inflicted in addition to other punishments, such as banishment, forced labor, or short-term incarceration.

The American colonies adopted and cultivated the traditional punishments of England. The most common punishments were corporal and capital. Petty criminals were often sentenced to a combination of corporal punishment and incarceration in jail for several months. The punishment for more serious crimes was usually death.

Punishment was the most comprehensive and severe in colonies founded on religious principles. In Massachusetts, controlled by the Puritans, a woman who committed adultery could be forced to wear the letter A in public as a punishing reminder of her conduct. Men who committed adultery were put to death, as were those who engaged in bestiality.

The witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts, illustrated the inventiveness of punishment in some of the colonies. In 1692 nineteen people were executed after children claimed that several women were practicing witchcraft. One of the alleged witnesses, who refused to participate in the trials, was slowly pressed to death under the weight of heavy rocks.

After the colonies won freedom from English control, enlightened social discourse led to the imposition of restraints on punishment. In 1791 the states ratified the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit excessive bail, excessive fines, and the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. Because the amendment did not define "cruel and unusual punishment," lawmakers and courts have had to determine what punishments are cruel and unusual. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause was interpreted to prohibit only torture and barbarous punishments.

After the ratification of the Eighth Amendment, corporal punishment was replaced by incarceration in jail or prison. Capital punishment, essentially the ultimate form of corporal punishment, survived into the 1970s, when it was held to be cruel and unusual (Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L. Ed. 2d 346 [1972]). That decision was overturned four years later in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976), and capital punishment was restored in many jurisdictions.

The United States is the only western industrialized country to use the death penalty. Most states authorize the death penalty as a punishment for first-degree murder. Hanging, death by electrocution, and the firing squad are still used, but the most common form of capital punishment is death by lethal injection.

For more than a century after the Eighth Amendment was ratified, lawmakers and courts did not interpret its prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment to include a prohibition of disproportionate punishment. Federal and state lawmakers were free to impose punishment on convicted criminals without concern for whether the punishment fit the crime.

In 1910 the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the proportionality concept in Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 30 S. Ct. 544, 54 L. Ed. 793. In Weems, Paul A. Weems was convicted of falsifying a single item of a public record and sentenced to hard labor for twelve to twenty years while chained at the wrists and ankles. The Court in Weems examined the nature of the crime, compared Weems's sentence with punishment in other jurisdictions for the same offense, and looked at the punishment for more serious crimes within the same jurisdiction.

In light of the comparisons, the Court found that the punishment of Weems was too harsh. According to the Court, the Eighth Amendment was designed to protect against such disproportionate punishment, and it ordered the case against Weems dismissed. Since the Weems decision, courts and lawmakers in the United States have attempted to find the right amount of punishment for various criminal acts.

Both legislators and judges determine punishment. Legislators identify the range of punishments that a court may impose for a certain crime. Punishment for crimes is listed in federal, state, and local laws. In most cases statutes name a variety of punishments appropriate for the crime, and courts have discretion in determining the precise punishment. However, many federal and state laws on narcotics identify a mandatory minimum prison sentence that must be imposed, and this takes sentencing discretion away from the judge.

In Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1990), Ronald Harmelin challenged the punishment he received for possession of more than 650 grams of cocaine. Though he had no prior felonies, Harmelin was convicted in Michigan state court and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. On appeal the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the sentence, ruling that "severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual in the constitutional sense, having been employed in various forms throughout our Nation's history."

Critics argue that the Harmelin opinion sidestepped the proportionality requirement created in earlier High Court cases and threw into doubt the standard for cruel and unusual punishment. Under Harmelin, proportionality is not required; what is relevant is whether the punishment has been used in the United States in the past. If it has been used, it is not unusual, and therefore not violative of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.

Because lawmakers can change laws, the list of acts that warrant punishment is not static. Before the twentieth century, many acts, such as sodomy, adultery, and premarital sex were punished with prison terms. In most states either these acts are no longer illegal or the laws prohibiting them are no longer enforced. Possession of most psychotropic substances was not punished until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol was punished in the United States from 1919 to 1933 (Prohibition). Debtors used to be punished with imprisonment, but this practice was discontinued in the 1830s.

Some acts have always been illegal, but the level of punishment inflicted for the crime has fluctuated. Drunk driving, for example, is punished more severely now than it was before the 1970s. The possession of a small amount of marijuana used to warrant a long prison term in most jurisdictions, but modern statutes limit the punishment for this crime to monetary fines and probation.

In assigning punishment for drug offenses, most laws differentiate between distribution and possession. State and federal statutes generally punish the selling or distribution of drugs more severely than possession. Repeat possession violators may receive short-term incarceration, but long prison terms are usually reserved for purveyors of illicit drugs. Lawmakers may vary the punishment within the same offense for different forms of the same drug. Possession of crack cocaine in most states and in the federal system, for example, is punished more harshly than possession of powder cocaine.

Before the Civil War, many states in the South had separate statutory codes for slaves, which imposed more severe punishment on slaves than on free persons. For example, any attempt by a slave to commit a crime punishable by death was punished with death, but free persons were not put to death for attempts. Also, the range of acts punished under slave codes was wider than that punished under the statutory codes for free persons.

Since the end of the Civil War, statutory codes in all states have purported to punish all persons equally. However, the issue of fairness concerning who gets punished has not disappeared. Many analysts of punishment in the United States cite the disproportionate number of African Americans in prisons as proof of selective prosecution and punishment. Scholars and others have also questioned a system that punishes drug offenses more harshly than violent offenses.

Critics also note disparities between punishment of impoverished persons and punishment of wealthy persons, noting that poor defendants are punished more harshly because they do not have the resources necessary to mount a vigorous defense to criminal charges.

The United States relies primarily on incarceration as punishment. However, many states have sought alternatives to incarceration. Many states use short-term boot camps to rehabilitate first-time offenders. These highly regimented camps are intended to give offenders the discipline and respect for authority necessary to succeed in society. Other states and localities are experimenting with alternatives to imprisonment for drug offenders, such as treatment, probation, and work requirements. Others have supplanted long periods of confinement with a small dose of public humiliation and a variety of deprivations.

In Nevada, for example, a person convicted of one drunk driving offense may be ordered to perform forty-eight hours of community service dressed in clothing that identifies the person as a drunk driving offender. Additionally, the defendant is deprived of his or her driver's license for ninety days; ordered to pay a fine ranging from $200 to $1,000; and required to attend, at the defendant's own expense, an alcohol abuse education course.

See: Salem witch trials; slavery; Criminal Law; Drugs and Narcotics; Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; Sentencing.

 

The use of an undesirable stimulus to modify or prevent an undesirable behavior.

 
Word Tutor: punishment
pronunciation

IN BRIEF: Pain or suffering for having done wrong.

pronunciation Let the punishment match the offense. — Cicero (106-43 BC)

 
Quotes About: Punishment

Quotes:

"Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime." - Woody Allen

"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness." - Aristotle

"Punishment is justice for the unjust." - St. Augustine

"Prisons are built with stones of Law. Brothels with the bricks of religion." - William Blake

"Prisons don't rehabilitate, they don't punish, they don't protect, so what the hell do they do?" - Jerry Brown

"Hanging is too good for him said Mr. Cruelty." - John Bunyan

See more famous quotes about Punishment

 
Wikipedia: punishment

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal in response to an unwanted, disobedient or morally wrong behavior.

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 psychology

In the field of psychology punishment has a more restrictive and technical definition. In this field, 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 play privileges are examples of negative punishment, while extra chores or spanking are examples of positive punishment. The definition requires that punishment is only determined after the fact by the reduction in behavior; if the offending behavior of the subject does not decrease then it is not considered punishment. There is some conflation of punishment and aversives, though an aversive that does not decrease behavior 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 sent 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 criminology, crime, juvenile delinquency).

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 (including flogging for being caught when stealing as ordered).

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).

Criminal punishment

Defector from the Viet Cong who was sent to a prison camp and deliberately starved.
Enlarge
Defector from the Viet Cong who was sent to a prison camp and deliberately starved.
  • 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
  • community service
  • Corporal punishment. Legality of these types of punishment varies from country to country. However it can be defined more widely:
  • Whipping or caning with various implements and on various body parts
  • Marking via branding or mutilations such as amputation.
  • Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, the most extreme form of punishment, sometimes used in countries where beating is seen as inhumane. See use of death penalty worldwide. Methods of capital punishment include crucifixion, hanging, the firing squad, burning at the stake, lethal injection, gas chambers, and starvation, among others.
  • Uncomfortable positions, such as in too confined spaces or being tied down long in an unnatural position that puts muscles under increasingly painful stress
  • 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
  • Banishment or 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.
  • In the past, people in some parts of the Western world were punished by being put in the stocks, or by being ducked in water.

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:
  • Mild forms of custodial sentences
    • Time-outs such as corner-time or even locking up in a dark place
    • 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 (or permanent) removal of privileges, rights, or choices, such as lack of desserts or toys
  • Compulsory activity such as extra chores

Even the above have come under criticism in recent times. Arguments against non-violent modification of behavior include the issue of ethics, and whether one's will should be forced on children. Positive parenting and Taking Children Seriously are non-punitive alternatives to modifying behavior.


While it is possible to classify corporal punishments by the categories of its scope of application (e.g. educational including parental and school discipline, other domestic, judicial etc.), i.e. by who can punish who and why, see above- this section elaborates the various ways to perform the physical torment.

Anatomical target

A crucial, inevitable choice is which part of the body is to suffer the painful treatment; sometimes a combination of several targets is chosen, so as to maximize the longer-lasting discomfort.

Several considerations can be taken into account, mainly :

  • how painful is it
  • how humiliating (especially if bared)
  • how safe (except for deliberate mutilation -such as amputation and branding- or execution, grave permanent damage must be avoided) if badly hit and, even in more moderate cases, how incapacitating (unless the punishee is already under custodial sentence other than hard labor, physically disabling the victim to work is rather contraproductive instead of coercing better -obedient, productive- conduct).
  • In addition, for instant discipline on the spot the preference tends to go to what can be hit immediately, especially if already bare (possibly so ordered or arranged) or scarcely protected by clothing, so often head and hands, or bare torso; secondly what can be bared with a simple gesture (lifting a dress or pulling down (under)garments, before proceeding with a spanking, paddling, etc.

Different parts of the anatomy represent different considerations for punishment:

  • The buttocks are often targeted for punishment, indeed some languages have a specific word for their chastisement (in English, spanking, fessée in French, nalgada in Spanish (both Romanesque words directly derived from the word for buttock)- this is a logical choice for these rather large, fleshy body parts are sensitive without endangering any bodily functions, heal well and relatively fast and have an intimate connotation that implies intense humiliation, often increased as baring them often also exposes the genitals--care must be taken not to hit these accidentally, so protective padding may be used (also for the kidneys) with dangerous implements, even if the spankee is otherwise stark naked
  • although lower parts of the back of the legs, notably thighs and calves, are reportedly about as sensitive and no more incapacitating, making them a logical alternative in cultures where a bare bottom is too indecent, they are rarely targeted
  • the back and the shoulders are the second most common choice; as long as the spine (paralysis possible) and excessive abuse of the kidneys (irreparable) is avoided, great pain is possible with limited incapacitation and humiliation, suitable for an adult 'honor corps' as often in the military
  • the abdomen and the ribs are again rather dangerous for 'accidental' damage, and hence not a common target
  • except for deliberate mutilation, the genitalia are rarely targeted, though very sensitive and the most humiliating, for the damage is to hard to control (except with sophisticated modern methods such as electrodes)
  • joints (such as knees) are an even more illogical, indeed rather rare choice: no humiliation, grave risk of incapacitation and even permanent damage
  • the head is also a dangerous choice, but more popular, especially the cheeks (relatively safe; indeed the same word is used for the bottom: butt-cheeks) and boxing the ears (hearing disability tends to manifest itself years later, so it's often ignored)
  • the hand of primates is perhaps evolution's finest product in terms of multifunctionality and precision (hence the notion 'dexterity'), requiring a sophisticated sense of touch; it is quite sensitive and not humiliating, while great force, especially with a hard implement, could cause excessive damage, so usually only the (most fleshy) palm is hit rather than the knuckles, and even then incapacitation (for manual labor and writing as in class) is generally a drawback
  • the soles of the feet are extremely sensitive, in se not humiliating, but quite incapacitating for a long time, while full recovery is possible even after an excruciating dose- see falaka

Still other methods are aimed at the interior, such as non-lethal intoxication, forced-feeding; at the muscles (difficult positions, exercices); or at the whole body, as with hunger, thirst, exhaustion.

Set and props

Except for 'daily' light punishment, physical discipline is often ritualized, even staged in a rather theatrical fashion.

As the great variety of practices, even in similar jurisdictions, suggests, tradition and the taste of the punishing parties in place often carry at least as much weight as objective practical considerations, especially if one considers there seems to have been relatively little effort to obtain functional knowledge from systematic comparative research.

Site & Location

While light and informal punishment is often administered on the spot, for serious discipline and in an institutional context there are often no rules at all, either laid down as such or deriving from written rules (e.g. if a juvenile is to receive his lashing/whipping from the police, he is logically brought there for punishment).

Apparatus

Contraptions the punishee is to be over, on and/or fixed to do not only have a practical function (which is their origin) during punishment but can also be left in place as a permanent, dissuasive display of the authority to inflict painful punishment, to deter disobedience that may cause the observing 'jurisdictional subject' to end up there for a lashing. See further under spanking, also for related positioning.

  • Falaka
  • frame
  • punishment horse
  • trestle

Punitive implements

A variety of implements are used for physical punishment. The terms used to describe these are not fixed, varying by country and by context. There are, however, a number of common types which are frequently encountered when reading about corporal punishment. These include the following - link through for more detailed information an each, the labels here are :

  • Rods, varying in size and flexibility.
    • A thin, flexible rod is often called a switch.
    • The Birch, a number of strong, flexible branches, bound together in their natural state.
    • Caning with canes of various types, most notably durable species of rottan, known at the rattan, or similar non-flat solid implements in on piece, e.g. (hickory) stick; even heavier cudgels.
  • The Paddle, a flat wooden or leather pad with a handle, sometimes holed, is still commonly used for corporal punishment in the USA.
  • For flogging, various flexible implements are used, mostly in leather (modifications such as knots, holes or hard -e.g. metal, bone- objects fixed on them render he 'bite' considerably harder), including:
    • Straps of various types including (razor) strop.
    • not to be confused with the lighter belt (thinner, suppler) which is often doubled, yet in Scotland and northern England, the term belt is also a euphemism for the tawse, a strap split into a number of tails at one end.
    • Whips are common in judicial punishment and prison discipline, with varieties including crops, the famous Russian knout and South African sjambok
    • multi-thong equivalents include the scourge and martinet in leather; while rope is the most common material for a flogger and the cat o' nine tails (mainly used in naval discipline, for army and judicial including prison flogging a leather version was common; there were also milder forms and variants).
  • axe, knife, sword and other blanc weapons or even the surgical scalpel etc are generally used for punishments named otherwise than by the instrument, rather by the damage down by cutting bodyparts, as in flaying, castration or (indetermined) amputation
  • a hot iron is used for branding (alternatively a tattoo-like technique) and other burn wounds

However, it is frequent for informal -mainly non-institutional- corporal punishment to be administered with whatever object comes to hand. It is common, for instance, wooden spoons, slippers or hairbrush (wooden or ebony backside) or bath brush to be used in domestic punishment, whilst rulers and other classroom equipment have been used in schools, as well as some items adopted from domestic practice, such as slippering (unlike booting not on the foot but wielded by hand, rather like a paddle).

In BDSM, the term pervertible is used for various objects than can be used as punitive implements.

Other
  • chemicals, such as poison, biting acid

Dramatis personae

While a summary punishment can routinely be performed with only two participants, e.g. an educator putting a naughty child over his lap and spanking its bottom while scolding its misdeeds, there is often, especially with a more severe punishment and/or in an institutional context, a more elaborate and formalistic procedure which can involve a small host of cast members, most of whom can make a difference to what exactly will happen and how

On the punishing side
  • It all starts with the authority to punish : for judicial punishment, this is normally the legislator, who defines the rules, at least in principle, as to which inacceptable actions are to be met with painful punishment, and who can apply them; the rules can be extremely precise, or at least aim to be, in determining a concordance between crime and punishment, or leave considerable margin; sometimes a specific case is dealt with at this very level, as for a political crime; in other spheres, often within general rules laid down by the actual legislator, the rules can be made by the school board, the master of the slaves/household, etcetera. However in real life minor punishments are often left to the ad hoc discretion of the discipliner, even where severe punishments have to be met with formal procedure- e.g.
  • Next there is the role of the judge, who determines for each punishable deed whether the conditions for application are met and fixes the fitting punishment; this judgment can go into more details, usually including (possibly simply repeating the specifications in the rules, sometimes modifying those) the anatomical target, the implement, the number of strokes, and whether the victim will be bared; in the non-judicial spheres, this can be for example the teacher in class or the headmaster, dean of discipline etcetera (often only for graver offenses), an overseer, any officer or subaltern, etcetera
  • Finally there is the actual punishment officer(s) charged with the physical execution; while in private spheres this is often the same as the 'judge', judicial sentences are generally ordered to be carried out by a third party specified by the law or in the judgment (otherwise it lay be impicite custom), usually the police, (para)military, prison staff, even a bailiff, or a professional executioner; imprecise judgments may leave considerable discretion to this level, e.g. determining with which implement to administer a punishment merely expressed in an ambivalent wording such as 'lashes', leaving a choice from the customary arsenal of implements, definitely affecting the gravity of the beating. Occasionally two or more officers (e.g. bosun's mates wielding the cat o' nine tails) take turns in administering a considerable number of lashes, so as to be 'fresh' enough to hit hard; a subtle ploy is including a left-handed one, so as the assure the stripes will frequently crisscross, which cuts even deeper
  • Sometimes an element of revenge is build in by allowing a party grieved by the punishee the satisfaction (even greater when naked and/or over the lap) of administering all or part of the sentence, or is even built in at corps spirit level, as described in the article fustuarium
  • Alternatively a prisoner may be charged, as a trustee, with administering punishment to other convicts, as was commonly the case in imperial Russia's judicial knout floggings.
  • Sometimes the choice of a specific administrator is guided by the punishee's expected perception:
  • Some may only play a subsidiary role, such as to fetch implements, to tie down the victim, to grip him down (say one per limb; hence called holder-down- as these get a very close view, or even divest, the humiliation factor is thus enhanced in case of punishment in the bare) or even to be used physically to horse him on
  • Occasionally several punishees are even made to use the same implement on each-other; as in trading licks, or even because the punishment officer would get too tired during a mass beating

The victim of the punishment

The punished party is often described by terms referring to his legal or other punishable status, e.g. convict, prisoner, culprit, miscreant, offender, or to the type of punishment imposed, e.g. spankee, whippee.

  • While he is the center of attention, as a rule little or no choice is given to him (or if so it's often meant to be tantalizing, neither option being preferable, e.g. a graver implement or more cuts), and his submission is coerced, e.g. extra swats for not maintaining the imposed (exposed) position or on the hands if they move in a reflex to the agonizing posterior.
  • Furthermore in some cases punishees are even forced -a rather sadistic ploy- to some cooperation, such as sailors having to prepare a cat o' nine tails for use on their own back; children sent to cut a switch or rod (possibly in advance, e.g., once a year as a reminder of being subject to it) for use on their own bottoms, again under threat of extra cuts; or less dramatically children or pledges fetching (or in the latter case even supplying) the cane or paddle for their own chastisement

Medical officer(s)
  • often it is prescribed by law, sentence or custom that a medically qualified person must examine the condemned (in the judicial sphere, not in the domestic model) to estimate whether his condition (e.g. cardiological) requires the beating to be postponed, mitigated or even abandoned, though generally this is a formality
  • usually the same stays to observe the execution of the sentence, in principle to intervene if the victim is in excessive (especially mortal) danger, but again this rarely results in cessation (some die nevertheless), or he even limits himself to bringing the convict back to conscience
  • after the wounds have been inflicted, especially with an instrument reputed for its damaging bite, such as the judicial cane or cat o'nine tails, either the same as above or -especially if there was none yet- another, such as prison infirmary staff, generally examines the wounds, which may urgently require medical care such as disinfecting and dressing

Passive witnesses
  • Especially if a precise punishment is imposed by regulations or specified in a formal sentence, often one or more official witnesses are prescribed, or somehow specified (e.g. from the faculty in a school, court -, police - or military officers) to see to the correct execution. Although this is often motivated as a guarantee against excess and for fair application, many victims rather perceive them as further embarrassment.
  • a party grieved by the punishee may be allowed the satisfaction of witnessing the humbled state of exposure and agony
  • the presence of peers, such as class mates, or an even more public venue such as a pillory on a square, in modern times even press presence, may serve two purposes: increasing the humilitation of the punishee and serving as an example to the audience
  • arrangements for peers subjects to the same punishment, or in line to suffer it soon, to hear the agony or see the beaten punishee frog-marched afterwards or even under the shower may be designed to terrify them

Other parameters of severity

  • Firstly there is the dosing: how many strokes? This is of course easy to prescribe, so the choice is clearly attributed.
  • An objective flaw in the system is that only mechanical administration (not practiced for beatings, as opposed to say the guillotine in capital punishment) would make the dosage an objective measure of the force applied, allowing a realistic estimation of the corporal damage it inflicts; even then, the actual level of induced pain can only be guessed as it depends on the individually varied threshold of sensitivity, even if allowances are made for such factors as age/size, but a discipliner who repeatedly punishes the same person(s) (such as an educator) may get a reasonable feel for it, raising the dilemma if justice is best served by equal punishment for equal crimes or by equal suffering
  • Various subtle modes of application also influence the efficiency of a stroke, e.g. British policemen wielding the birch learned it hurts even more if a move of the hand makes it slide along (like a claw) just when it reaches the bare skin
Giles Cory was pressed to death during the Salem Witch Trials in the 1690s as he didn't plead
Enlarge
Giles Cory was pressed to death during the Salem Witch Trials in the 1690s as he didn't plead
  • Some punishments have an in-built vagueness of severity, even an interative character, e.g. crushing as coercitive torture to force an accused to enter a plea would become an execution by his/her 'obstinacy' until asphyxiation occurs.

Procedure

For further details on positions and sequence of actions, see under spanking : most is identical or derives logically from what is said there

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. It is often believed that punishment, especially if made known to or even witnessed by the punishee's peers, can also deter them from committing similarly punishable offences, and thus serves a greater good preventively.

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'. Furthermore, especially with children and depending on the issue, feelings of bitterness and resentment can arouse towards the punisher (parent) who threaten a child with punishment as it doesn't feel respected.

Punishment is also used to deter animals from undesired behavior, such as urinating indoors or clawing furniture. It must be applied as soon as possible when the animal 'misbehaves', ideally interrupting or preventing it from occurring. In example, if a cat approaches a chair leg and rears up to scratch it, squirting it with water would punish the behavior, making it less likely in the future.

Punishment is also used occasionally within the treatment for individuals with certain mental or developmental disorders, such as autism, to deter or at least reduce the occurrence of behavior which can be injurious (such as head banging or self-mutilation), dangerous (such as biting others) or socially stigmatizing (such as stereotypical repetition of phrases or noises). In this case, each time the undesired behavior occurs, punishment is applied to reduce future instances. Generally the use of punishment in these situations is considered ethically acceptable if the corrected behavior is a significant threat to the individual and/or to others.

Arguably deterrence, regardless of effectiveness and justification, does not qualify as punishment when the punishee (child, animal or mental patient) was not sufficiently aware that its act would be considered punishable misbehavior and hence did not make a 'guilty' choice.

Rehabilitation

Some punishment includes work to reform and rehabilitate the wrongdoer so that they will not commit the offense again. This is distinguished 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

Main article: Restorative Justice

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".

Some libertarians argue that full restoration or restitution on an individualistic basis is all that is ever just, and that this is compatible with both retributivism and a utilitarian degree of deterrence.[1]

Revenge, 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. However, some argue that this is a "zero sum game", that such acts of street justice and blood revenge are not removed from society, but responsibility for carrying them out is merely transferred to the state.

Retribution sets an important standard on punishment — the transgressor must get what he deserves, but no more. Therefore, a thief put to death is not retribution; a murderer put to death is. Adam Smith, who is credited as the father of Capitalism, wrote extensively about punishment. In his view, an important reason for punishment is not only deterrence, but also satisfying the resentment of the victim. Moreover, in the case of the death penalty, the retribution goes to the dead victim, not his family. (So, to extend Smith's views, a murderer can be spared the death penalty only by the victim's express wish, made when he was alive.) One great difficulty of this approach is that of judging exactly what it is that the transgressor "deserves". For instance, it may be retribution to put a thief to death if he steals a family's only means of livelihood; conversely, mitigating circumstances may lead to the conclusion that the execution of a murderer is not retribution.

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. Victor Balest takes this even farther as he maintains that it is immoral of a society not to apply such retributive justice in a case where the guilt of the criminal has been proven beyond doubt and where all legal appeals have been legitimized and exhausted. Retributive justice is, in his view, a moral mandate that societies must guarantee and act upon. He contends that if wrongdoing goes unpunished, individual citizens will become demoralized and this ultimately undermines the moral fabric of the society. Not to punish wrongdoing is unfair, and it has recently been shown in clinical studies of primates that fairness and lack of fairness is inherently understood and acted upon.

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.

Education

From German Criminal Law, Punishment can be explained by positive prevention theory to use criminal justice system to teach people what are the social norms for what is correct and acts as a reinforcement. It teaches people to obey the law and eliminates the free-rider principle of people not obeying the law getting away with it.

Sources and References

See also


 
Translations: Translations for: Punishment

Dansk (Danish)
n. - straf, ublid medfart

Nederlands (Dutch)
straf, afstraffing

Français (French)
n. - punition, châtiment, (Jur) peine, (fig) rude épreuve

Deutsch (German)
n. - Strafe, Bestrafung

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - κολασμός, τιμωρία, ποινή

Italiano (Italian)
punizione, castigo

Português (Portuguese)
n. - punição (f)

Русский (Russian)
наказание

Español (Spanish)
n. - castigo, sanción

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - (be)straffning, stryk

中文(简体) (Chinese (Simplified))
处罚, 惩罚, 刑罚

中文(繁體) (Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 處罰, 懲罰, 刑罰

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 벌, 형벌

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 処刑, 刑罰, 懲罰, 虐待, 罰すること, 処罰

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) عقاب, عقوبه, قصاص, جزاء‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮עונש, נזק, טיפול גס, התעללות, סבל‬


 
 

Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "punishment" at WikiAnswers.

 

Copyrights:

Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.  Read more
Thesaurus. Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editors of the American Heritage® Dictionary Copyright © 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.  Read more
Answers Corporation Antonyms. © 1999-2008 by Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.  Read more
Political Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Philosophy Dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Copyright © 1994, 1996, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more