"In the punishment system, people are held responsible for their actions by being punished for doing things that are especially wrong. In this way, the punishment system displays a kind of respect for people's choices. The criminal is treated as being responsible for having done the thing that is especially wrong."
http://pages.pomona.edu/~mjg14747/034-2007/Morris.shtml
After reading this blog, how wuold you view this issue of the right to be punished from a behavioral perspective?
I view the right to punish as still an important right. I do feel that people should be punished for some of their actions. I know and understand that punishment is not the best use of behavioral change. I do however feel that some people need more of a punishment than a reinforcement to understand that their behaviors are wrong and not the correct ways to do things. I do feel that the therapy method would be useful, but I just don't feel that it will work as well in the terms that they are using it now.
I disagree, I guess I just don't see how punishment shows someone *how* what they've done is wrong. I can agree in some circumstances punishment is necessary, but I don't think the purpose of punishment is to let someone know why what they did is wrong. If we wanted someone to know why it's wrong to steal money or kill someone, we'd force them to take an ethics class. If we want to modify his/her behavior, punishment is the best option sometimes, but not most of the time.
I think the real question is: given the facts that punishment is not as effective at behavior modification as reinforcement (in most cases), and that most behaviorists avoid it when possible because it is inherently aversive, is it ethical to choose punishment over differential reinforcement/extinction *because* it is aversive. Personally, my gut feeling tells me that punishment is the correct course of action for murderers, not because it is effective at changing their behaviors, but because it is unpleasant and they deserve it. Is it ethical to follow through on this instinct? I don't think so, but any alternative seems too lenient. It's a tough dilemma.
From a behavioral perspective I believe the punishment system simply punishes the criminal as opposed to offering them an alternative. If you constantly use negative punishment, then the criminal is just going to view everything negatively. However, if you use postive reinforcement, i think the criminal would become a slightly better person. For example, if the criminal doesn't cause any fights or distruptances during the day, he/she can have free time to watch tv at night. Understandably, some crimes are extremely harsh and negative punishment is more than needed. However, if you are just constantly negatively punishing someone they're really not going to better themselves.
I think everybody has and deserves the right to punish, and to be punished. However, I don't necessarily think that it's the best choice, especially with criminal behavior, and those who are prone to it. If somebody is consistently being punished for making mistakes, that is all they will ever know and they will begin to feel and know that they are a bad person who is only capable of making bad mistakes. At some point, if someone with these tendencies is offered reinforcement for their good behaviors, then I think that this would be a more effective way to handle the situation. I think there should be just as much reinforcement involved as punishment, and perhaps people who emit these behaviors wouldn't feel as though they should continue to behave in these ways because that's what they're expected to do.
"If somebody is consistently being punished for making mistakes, that is all they will ever know and they will begin to feel and know that they are a bad person who is only capable of making bad mistakes"
This sentence was great and very sad to think about. It reminds me of learned helplessness. Hopefully, we are not punishing people for mistakes though. I do believe there is a difference between mistakes and wrong choices in behavior.
I do think that everyone needs to be punished but how they are punished is another thing. I feel that punishment if its reinfored allows one to see what they did wrong and what they should do next time. I feel that there are ways to punish properly but then some people need to be punished more then others
If you believe as Skinner did that punishment only leads for the behavior to e manifested elsewhere in different behaviors then you definately not agree with MOrris. Yes, I to believe we all have a right TO BE punished. I do not however agree that we all have a right TO punish. Since we know that punishment is not the best way to decrease aversive behaviors, we should look to the differential reinforcers that could be used, or be punished in a way that will be most effective. The punished should only have to be punished once to learn their lesson, hince the punishment should be intense, swift, and abrupt. If it continues it should be frequent, but maybe letting someone rot in a jail for 10 years isn't aversive enough to warrant they stay away from trouble in the future. I totally believe that therapy can be useful. While I understand the arguement in the article that therapy places the blame outside of the persons control I believe it can be useful. Punishment still needs to occur along with therapy in my opinion in order to work. But if we can try and get people to understand themselves, and why they do what they do they can work to change the things in their life that become antecedents for their unlawful behavior.
I do feel that punishment should be used in situations where reinforcement is just not an option. I still believe reinforcement should be the first choice in behavior modification. Punishment is known to not be as effective as reinforcement overall and I believe that punishment should be used for harsh criminal offenders but reinforcement should also be used in conjuction with punishment. Punishment should not be the only option.
I think the behavioral perspective is correct. At first it was confusing because the punishment system was said to respect people's choices whereas the therapy system does not. It sounds backwards but after reading through it, it makes sense that the punishment system respects people by giving them responsibility and the choice of what they want to do. It respects peoples choices but is not limited to punishing the wrong choices. Therapy only tells people they shouldn't, it does not let them decide for themselves.
If a criminal commits a crime it is their own personal decision, not saying there may not be some other driving forces behind their decision such as their neighborhood, lack of resources, or poverty. But the ultimate choice is their's. I could get in a fight outside of a bar but i would be making a choice that I consciously know that there are punishments for... so the fact that punishment is in place may prevent me from commiting that crime of assault or disorderly conduct in the first place. I think punishment in society is necessary to restore the balance within the society. I also believe that criminals should be treated as humans, everyone makes bad choices and mistakes. We need to have a system of reinforcement set up to reintroduce the person back into society not only as some who has served there time but also someone who has been rehabilitated and will not be a repeat offender. The punishment should act as a deterant to criminal activity for all offenders and potential offenders.