The three theories of punishment – retributive, reforming and dissuasive – try to classify the expected result through punishment. It is also a kind of justification for inflicting punishment.

Educational Implications: Retribution and Reform

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

* However, there is a possibility that in the case of a bully (a maladjusted child) the effectiveness of retributive punishment is lost. The bully may misinterpret the moral mentor’s resentment as a personal attack on the mother by a bigger man. This would block the way for real reform.

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

* There is also a kind of illogicality in retributive punishment. One can throw acid in another’s face and can be punished. But is it possible to provide the suffering of the punishment to the evil committed? Also, can the facial disfigurement of the injured party be diminished in any way by punishment? This implies that the selection of the appropriate punishment as retribution becomes very difficult for the teacher.

* The ultimate goal of retribution is to make the child understand that the punishment is given so that he reforms and repents. Here one may be tempted to ask: “Why not try another way out than inflicting pain? Wouldn’t it be better if the teacher advises the child and gives him an additional learning task that has utility value?”

Educational implication: deterrent punishment

* Dissuasive punishment seems simple and utilitarian and could be used by the teacher to ensure punctuality, order, etc.

* The teacher may justify the use of dissuasive punishments if their ultimate goal is to eliminate nuisance and develop in the child a sense of personal responsibility.

* However, the teacher should be discreet in using the punishment of digging up people who are prone to questioning authority. If the teacher persists in conditioning fear, such individuals may become cynical experts at avoiding detection. They may even give a false display of virtue and become undisciplined the moment control is removed.

* Deterrent punishment even emphasizes that if a child is caught lying, he should be punished so that other children do not tell lies in the future. Here you could very well

Ask: “Is it right to punish a child so that the morale of others improves?”

So far I have focused on retributive/reform punishment and deterrent punishment by emphasizing the irrationality involved in punishing the child. Incidentally, behaviorists believe that “….Teachers should not employ punishment because students will soon learn to avoid sources of punishment and may generate angry and fearful reactions toward 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 in making use of any of the three types of punishment, it may do him good to follow a simple formula PUNISH

P-Personal history… Is the offender prone to mischief?

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

N-It is really necessary… (It may be circumstances that made the child commit

the offense)

I – The teacher must be Impartial

S- Select the type of punishment from a wide range

H- Be Human in administration. The ultimate good of the offending individual must

stay in sight.