Topical Blog Week #5 (due Thursday)

After reading this article, I must say that I have differing views. Mainly, my point is this: In extreme cases, in which the person is in legal trouble, they deserve punishment—ie: jail time. In the little things, such as raising a child, or daily struggles, I believe reinforcement is the best way (in most cases).
As for the extreme punishment- I don’t think that the death penalty is acceptable. Morris says in his blog, “that treating someone as a person involves respecting his or her choices”. However, how is this treating someone like a human? From rcn.com, it is stated that “Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns”. It is hypocritical and inefficient. It is generally in a sense, hurting someone, in punishment for hurting someone. It seems like an odd cycle. It “teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems”.
As for the small everyday behaviors, especially when raising a child, I believe in reinforcement. It’s hard to say I am for one and against the other. Punishment can be necessary for certain things. However, on the topic of spanking, I disagree with that. According to kidglue.com, children spanked more frequently at age 3 seemed to be more aggressive at age 5. When being spanked 2 or more times a month, the aggression was up 50%. A good point is that spanking is ineffective because it “installs fear, rather than understanding of why a particular behavior shouldn’t continue”.

http://www.kidglue.com/2010/04/13/new-study-reveals-concrete-effects-of-spanking-on-childrens-personalities/
http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html

From a behavioral perspective, I think I'd have to agree with Morris on this argument for a few reasons. Punishment strongly recognizes and respects people's choices for their own actions. While the therapy system can be more caring so it seems, it does not make people take responsibility for what they've done, and therefore does not make people want to stop those behaviors. I believe that our society would literally fall apart without punishment. Because while the therapy system tries to prevent people from upsetting balance in the first place, we can see that the balance is already upset and there will always be people who emit behaviors in such a way that upset the balance no matter what, even if there are serious punishments and consequences involved. Also, if we used reinforcement instead of punishment in society, I don't believe that would work completely either. While some people would enjoy the benefits of being reinforced by good behavior, there would be those few people who strive to offset that balance and they wouldn't really care about the reinforcements being given. When they go in the opposite direction then, there would be no action to take to stop that behavior without punishment. If used correctly, I believe punishment is ethical and practical. This applies to children, adults, and even pets. For example, on the website I found about punishment with dogs, this lady prefers to use positive reinforcement. However, just like with humans, there are times when she needs to use punishment to get the point across, or the person/animal will continue to emit the aversive behavior that needs punished.
I do agree that in extreme situations punishment is needed the most. I also agree with some of the blogs above that in minor cases, punishment really isn't needed all that much. I strongly believe that if positive or negative reinforcement can be used instead of punishment, I believe that it should be. I also think that it depends on the person whether or not punishment will even work. Personally, I know that punishment worked for me when I was a child. It worked to the point that I rarely did anything wrong. But that was just my nature. My brother was raised the same exact way I was and he went the opposite direction completely. He stands up to my parents and pretty much does what he wants. That was just his nature. But even though my brother does stand up to my parents, he still knows right from wrong. He knows that the punishment from my parents will not be threatening to him, so he does what he wants anyway. The threat from the law is a worse one, however, so he does obey the law. I found an article from Virgina State that states this as well. It says that effective discipline (punishment) helps children learn how to control the aversive behaviors they emit and learn right from wrong. They don't just receive discipline so they fear punishment. I believe this is how it is with our society too. The law doesn't just punish people so they fear it, they try to use people as examples and help others to learn right from wrong. I hope this all makes sense to those who read it!

http://clickswithdogs.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/negative-punishment-and-why-it-is-great/
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/350/350-111/350-111.html

Although this article made a few valid points, I still am on edge about some things discussed. In extreme cases like breaking the law, criminals do need jail to serve as their punishment. I do not view the death penalty as a form of punishment, though. Punishment is supposed to lower the likelihood of repeating the undesirable behavior, yes, but shouldn’t the person have a choice to not repeat the behavior for a true punishment. If we want to alter behavior, in my opinion, the person should be conscience and able to make the decision for their behavior to change. If he/she is dead, they don’t make the choice, the person killing them does. In an article called, “Case Against the Death Penalty,” the writer mentions that the death penalty sets an example for society that killing is the way to solve a problem. With as many murders that occur here everyday, that should be the last thing that we want to convey to America.

However, I think that reinforcement can be just as effective, if not more effective, in other instances like raising children. In an article entitled “Positive Reinforcement vs. Punishment for Kids,” the writer states that “it can be concluded that reinforcement is always a better option and punishment is a last resort.” I am not saying that children shouldn’t be punished for their wrong-doing, I am simply saying that it would be better to prevent the unwanted behavior by using reinforcement. Here is what I mean: If a school-aged girl failed a test, her parents probably would not like that behavior, so they could punish her. However, I argue that it would be easier if when she was getting good grades, they praised her or reinforced her in some way, so she would continue that desirable behavior of getting those good grades. If she felt truly reinforced, she would not want to let her grades slip, therefore punishment would not be necessary.

http://www.mychildhealth.net/positive-reinforcement-vs-punishment-fo-kids.html
http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

I believe the implementation of reinforcement and punishment should be based on the situation and contributing variables. Individuals can emit behaviors that are deemed offensive or inappropriate by society that would elicit people to emit reinforcement behaviors to change the undesirable behavior. Conversely, individuals can emit behaviors that society deems dangerous, harmful to oneself and others, these behaviors elicit a consequence of society emitting a punishing behavior. Despite intellectual and social advancements, humans are emotionally impulsive, and will always desire retribution. The "eye for an eye" ideal would not have survived thousands of years of intellectual development if the need for justice and retribution were not inherently human.

I agree with Morris when he says humans have the right to be punished, because if people have the right to emit a behavior of making decisions if they choose to take another person's freedom by taking their life, then I believe they also knowingly made a decision to have their freedom taken from them. Unless the person is mentally ill, and doesn't know the consequences for killing another person, implemented by our legal system, people make a choice to be punished. Individuals have a right to freedom, and it has been established that if one takes away the freedom/life of another, they accept the consequence of punishment. I understand that the death penalty is a controversial subject because it does reduce the frequency of the undesirable behavior, but only because it removes the individual’s ability to emit the undesirable behavior. According to an article designed to help teachers and parents emit effective punishment behaviors, punishment is effective in teaching an individual what not to do. This method is beneficial for instilling in children what behaviors to emit that are acceptable and desirable. I agree that punishment is beneficial in situations where a teacher or parent desires a child to stop emitting an undesirable behavior, especially a harmful behavior, immediately, but the punishment must be severe enough to disrupt the undesirable behavior.

Reinforcement is also a necessary teaching method because it increases the frequency of an individual emitting a desirable behavior. Positive and negative reinforcement can be used to improve productivity in the workplace. According to an article by Jeff Dusak, positive and negative reinforcement increases the likelihood of a target behavior being emitted. A few words of encouragement or praise can boost an individual’s self-esteem, and consequently, he/she will emit that encouraged behavior at a higher frequency. I agree with Dusak because I have seen first-hand how positive reinforcement leads to more productive individuals, especially immediately following the reinforcement.

http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/edPsybook/Edpsy11/edpsy11punsummary.htm

http://www.stfrancis.edu/content/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/postrein.html

After emitting a behavior of reading this article, I have many opinions on what I think. I thought the article was interesting, and there were both good, and not so good points made (in my opinion). First off, I don’t think I can say either way is reinforcement or punishment is better. I think it all depends on the circumstances and situation. I don’t think ONE WAY is BETTER than another. I think I would have to agree with Morris in with some of his points. I do think punishment is a good procedure when it comes to certain things. I think if criminals’ breaks the law, then they need to pay for what they did and serve jail time, yet when it comes to the death penalty I am not sure. In class we learned that punishment is supposed to decrease the behavior, but if you sentence someone to death, of course they won’t repeat the behavior because they are dead, but we never even gave them the chance to see if the punishment worked like the definition says. Of course it kind of “worked” because obviously that individual won’t be repeating the behavior. In an article from ABC news, an attorney of a man that was sentenced the death penalty stated that “life in prison without the possibility of release is the harshest penalty,” and that is it worse than being put to death. This is once again a whole another topic, but it does relate to punishment.
Another article by “PhD In Parenting” states many reasons why punishment is the wrong way to go. Again, some of these I agree with, but others I do not. One reason they used was because the punishment is only short term (yet this really only applies to children, not prison inmates). Another reason is that the punishment only teaches your children not to get caught; children only look at the punisher and not the punishment. These are just a few reasons that were stated in the article. Also, I think it depends on the person, especially children. Some kids learn better by reinforcement while others by punishment. With this, I think it proves how it definitely depends on the situation. There is a difference between grounding your kid for a week, and putting someone on death row.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/08/connecticut.home.invasion.penalty/index.html?hpt=T1

http://www.phdinparenting.com/2008/06/20/new-reason-why-punishment-doesnt-work-the-law/

Honestly, the article was slightly confusing to me and I had to read it a couple times. What the author (who I assume is not Morris) seems to be saying is that Morris is wrong in saying that we have a right to be punished. He is saying, instead, that we have a right to choose our behavior and that society has a right to punish if that behavior is not consistent with the laws given. I will say that I do agree with that. Punishment is a consequence of our behavior, and oftentimes, that consequence is uncontrollable by us. I remember when I was a kid, I said something that my parents took as a smartass remark. (I obviously disagreed.) I was yelled at as a consequence to my remark. The goal of them yelling at me was to get me to decrease the number of “smartass” remarks I made, so it could be considered punishment. I couldn’t control the consequence, but I could control what I said in the future. It’s the same for criminals. They are responsible for committing crimes, but they usually don’t have any control of the punishment. It can range from community service to death row. Ultimately, I must agree with the author.
While the article didn’t discuss different types of punishment per se, reading through the previous posts I saw many people comment on spanking as a form of punishment. It was most often noted to be a bad form of punishment, one that should never be used. I want to discuss my view, even though it’s not specifically in the article, because it is supposed to be a form of punishment and it’s a consequence that isn’t controllable by the children getting spanked (they would never choose it!). I will say that I was spanked as a child and I personally have no problem with spanking kids – in the right context. I believe spanking should be used only as a last resort or if you need to immediately get the child’s attention and make sure they’re paying attention. I’ll use the example of running out into a street. If a 4 year old is running toward the street where he could be hit by a car, do you stop him and say, “Good job running. But don’t run that way.” No. You catch up to him and say, “Don’t run that way again.” If he does it again, a quick swat on the butt is good. It tells him you mean it and there are aversive consequences to running that way. I read an article that basically said the same thing (it wasn’t a scholarly article, I’m afraid). Moreover, the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with me and the non-scholarly article. They state that “spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations.” They strongly advocate for other types of punishment to be used instead. I agree with that. To take the option of spanking off the table is limiting yourself, though, especially if you have a child who doesn’t see a really aversive consequence in time-outs or getting their toys/games taken away. That strategy doesn’t work well with my nephew, but if you threaten to spank him, he behaves very quickly. And sometimes the threat is all you need.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;101/4/723
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/433483/should_parents_use_spanking_as_a_form.html?cat=25

From a behavioral stand point, I do not agree with Morris about the right to be punished is better than a therapy approach. As B.F. Skinner commented, nothing is learned through punishment. According to an article about the problems of punishment in dog training, punishment is not as clear as reinforcement. Reinforcement tells the organism that what it did is good where as punishment typical just tells the organism to stop. For example, in the context of being in a store, a kid whines about wanting a candy bar and the mother scolds the child. The scolding is aversive so the behavior is less likely to occur but the target behavior is not specific. Is it the way the child asked, what time of day the child asked, how often the child asked, etc. The child might resume the behavior in a different place or different way such as speaking louder or whining at home instead. As discussed in class, punishment usually leads to the behavior being emitted in a different situation oppose to stopping altogether.

I also think Morris assumes too much about a person’s belief that something he or she did is, in fact, wrong and that he or she wants to be held responsible. According to an article about the characteristics of a psychopath is “a history of criminal behavior in which a person does not seem to learn from their experience, but merely thinks about ways to not get caught.” Psychopaths commit lots of crimes but if the current punishment procedure decided on by our law system does not work, what does one do to stop psychopaths from committing crimes?

http://www4.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/DrP3.htm

http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Articles/Psychopath.htm

This article elicited a feeling of frustration because I could not see punishment as a right? Punishment is inherent. It is natural. For me, it fits with the Buddhist philosophy of inherent suffering. There will always be suffering and we must acknowledge it, accept it, deal with it. We cannot just address good behaviors and reinforce them we also need to acknowledge aversive behavior and punish it. If all the bad behaviors went unpunished we would lose a part of what we know as right and wrong. It is almost an ethical standpoint. If someone frequently emits pleasurable behaviors and is constantly reinforced that person can still emit aversive behaviors. We would be wrong to let their aversive behaviors go unpunished because the safety and well-being of others may be at steak which would inhibit the ability of others to grow towards self-actualization if they are not in a safe environment!
As far as choosing which method should be used more over the other I cannot choose one. It seems that combining reinforcement and punishment procedures within the same context would elicit better results.
The articles I found elicited interest in me. They delved deeper into the dimensions of reinforcement and pairing that reinforcement with punishment with varying degrees of reinforcement. He/She gave an example of combining both (these are selected parts from the example given in the article):

The child misses his favorite television show because he fails to do his homework. (He is being punished for whatever he did instead of the homework.)

Next, the child does his homework, while missing part of the television show. When he gets it neatly and correctly finished, he receives Type II Reinforcement by being allowed to watch the rest of the show.

The next day, he does his homework instead of playing video games after school. He receives Type III Reinforcement (by avoiding loss of television) for doing homework.

http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/edPsybook/Edpsy10/edpsy10strengths.htm

http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/edPsybook/Edpsy11/edpsy11sideeffects.htm

From a behavioral standpoint, I think this article is a moot point because you don't need the "right" to punish. All operant behaviors are subject to reinforcement or punishment, regardless if the consequence is intentional or not. This article is speaking of punishment as only something like fines, incarceration, or in extreme cases death. These are examples of aversive consequences of a behavior, but they are only examples. Punishment is the process by which a behavior is decreased.
Pitting punishment against therapy in a behavioral sense doesn't make any sense at all simply because, if you think about it, the implementation of therapy is in itself a form of positive punishment. I'll use a broad example of the ABC's to illustrate (this won't be perfect because I won't be isolating a specific target behavior or consequence)
A = Functioning in society
B = Commit a Crime
C = Sent to therapy
Being sent to therapy would decrease the frequency of the behavior because therapy is meant to "rehabilitate criminals" or in other words stop criminal behavior. This is an example of positive punishment because it includes the addition of treatment.
I also disagree with Morris' claim that therapy doesn't respect people's choices because it doesn't hold them responsible for their actions. As my article about cognitive therapy for criminals says, "One of the purposes of therapy is not for society to hold someone responsible for their actions, but for the criminals to hold THEMSELVES responsible for their actions. (Zarka)"
Right now, we as a society have a problem with the criminal system. Not only do we not know the true purpose of criminal punishment is, but we aren't even sure if our current criminal punishment system works. The goal of the system is to decrease crime (hence punishment) but, behavioral research states that reinforcement tends to work better than punishment. My second article reinforces this statement saying: "The ultimate purpose of the criminal law – the prevention of crime – is often best achieved by alternative initiatives such as social measures to promote education, foster employment and tackle social deprivation. (Kennedy)" I personally think crime would be better decreased through reinforcement of education rather than the punishment of crime.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/243046/cognitive_therapy_for_criminals_pg2.html?cat=72

http://richardkennedysolicitors.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-criminal-punishment-system/

After reading this article, I have many different opinions about punishment and therapy. I agree with Morris when says “that treating someone as a person involves respecting his or her choices, and that the punishment system does that while the therapy system does not.” I think if someone chooses to disrespect society’s standards and commit a crime, they deserve to be punished and treated the way they acted. I think the punishment system does respect the person to the degree that the person deserves to be. In therapy, people are not being held responsible for their actions and aren’t being treated like they have committed a crime. Although they may need a form of therapy, I still believe they deserve a form of punishment to be held accountable.

In the article The Cycle of Crime and Punishment in Psychotherapy, they discuss the idea that punishment might not always work considering criminals are continuing to be cycled in and out of the justice system. The author argues that this happens because the individuals don’t have the knowledge from therapy the understand how to stay out of this cycle. I support this idea to an extent. I think a criminal should be punished however while being punished, they need to be taught ways to avoid committing these criminal acts in the future.

Another article describes sex offenders and how they should be treated after committing the crime. It says “These offenders should be punished and not let off or forgiven of their crime(s) just because they have gone through a treatment program”. They believe that even though they went through these treatment programs, they still need to be punished because their behavior was wrong and cannot happen again, especially when sex offenders have a high rate of the sexual acts reoccurring. Overall, I think punishment should be used to reinforce the idea that these individuals committed a crime and it’s not okay.
I also think reinforcement is necessary in wanting to increase specific behaviors that are positive. Reinforcement works as the opposite of punishment therefore, it is necessary to hold people who have shown positive behavior accountable for their actions through reinforcement.

http://www.afterpsychotherapy.com/crime-and-punishment/
http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/crimes_y.htm

Throughout the article, my opinion kept changing. I would go back and forth between punishment and reinforcement. The reason why I did this was because I don't think it's a clear cut answer. We can't say that people in favor of punishment are 100% correct in their beliefs and vice versa for fans of reinforcement.

Some things I agreed upon with Morris is that people deserve consequences for the actions they choose to emit. Everything you do has a consequence, whether it be good or bad. And sometimes, depending on the severity of the action emitted, it requires punishment. When I talk about this certain behavior that requires punishment, I am talking about when someone is hurt or someone has had their personal rights taken away. It is only right that the person responsible for committing such crimes is punished with jail time. If someone is going to conflict with another person's right to live (such as murder, rape, assault, burglary, kidnapping, etc.), then they shouldn't have certain rights as a person. That is just the consequence we all must face if we were to emit such a behavior.

However, I also believe reinforcement works wonders. And in most cases, I believe reinforcement would overpower punishment. According to my experiences, I learn much more from reinforcement than punishment. A lesson is not likely learned by punishment. I feel as if punishment is only a way of scaring people into not doing that behavior again. But what about the people who aren't afraid? Those are the people you see acting out the same exact behaviors over and over again because they don't understand what it does to others and what effect it has on the world around them. On a family website I found, it says that most times, punishment is telling the person what NOT to do, instead of telling the person what TO DO. Say you punish you child for not doing their homework by taking the TV privileges away - and that's all that is done. They haven't really learned what to do. Now they associate the behavior of not getting the homework done with the consequence of no TV. Most likely, this will anger the child even more and the lesson will be forgotten. Honestly, this has literally happened to me. I didn't care that my homework wasn't done... I spent the next day or two whining about the TV!

Overall, in most cases, therapy wins. It gives the person who emitted the poor behavior more self-esteem, confidence, and understanding in the entire situation. Punishment does not do this and the only need for punishment is to rid this world of people who just cannot function in society with us, or people who have made decisions to take away the rights of others. They must receive a punishment for their actions.

http://life.familyeducation.com/communication/behavior-modification/29734.html
http://www.parentingwithdignity.com/rss/0203_reasons_punishment_does_not_work.htm

After reading the blog I agree and disagree. I agree that everyone should be held accountable for their actions and sometimes punishment is necessary. However I do not think that punishment is always the answer and that therapy doesn’t work. I think that it depends on the situation; every situation is different and sometimes it’s good to use punishment and other times it’s good to use reinforcement. Sometimes punishment can be more harmful than good.
The first website I got to support my opinion was: http://www.tulsa.oklahoma.net/~jnichols/PunishmentProblems.html
This website said, “punishment often fails to stop, and can even increase the occurrence of, the undesired response.” It also talked about how, “attention is one of the most potent rewards available, and since it is difficult to punish without paying attention to the offender, punishing may serve more as a reward than as a punishment.” This supports my opinion because it talks about how punishment is not always the answer and how it just depends on the situation.
The second website I got to support my opinion was:
http://www.kidsdevelopment.co.uk/effectsofpunishmentonchildren.html
This website said that, “punishment does not teach a child anything other than that it is alright to hurt others. Instead, parents should strive to discipline their children in order to help them better themselves and their situations. Properly disciplined children will grow to be happy, healthy and productive members of not just the family, but society as well.” This helps support my opinion because it also says that punishment can be more harmful to a child than it is helpful. It also says that punishment can be helpful if it does correctly. I really do think that it just depends on the situation. I ultimately that punishment is a good and bad thing, it all depends on the different factors.

After reading the blog, I still feel like there is a right to be punished for everyone, however I do not think that it will always be the best option. There are instances where punishment will not be the best way to approach the situation and there will be times when it will be the best way. I feel as if there are appropriate times for punishment and there are appropriate times for reinforcement. The article did lose me a few times when trying to define what a "person" is, but I think that when someone does something wrong being punished can sometimes be a way of making the person even more mad or upset about what is happening.
The therapy side of the blog did make a little more sense in the aspect of trying to understand the person and maybe look more at what the problem is instead of just jumping right to punishing them. Punishment can make the situation worse because being punished is the last thing they really want to do, then leading them to rebel even more. I stand more on the side of against punishment in reference to this blog after reading it.
The first website is:
http://www.is.wayne.edu/stuarthenry/Effectiveness_of_Punishment.htm
This supports the idea that prison is not an effective form of punishment for people, even though it is considered one of the more serious forms of punishment. It states that people essentially do not learn anything from their time in prison, considering the rate of people who leave prison and end up right back inside not to long after. A lot of the time, people are just waiting for the day they get out so they can return to their crime-filled lifestyle. It also says that a really good way to avoid offending and reoffending is through an education.
The second website is:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies
This website states that there is no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrence of crime. It says that when people sit here and say that the death penalty is saving lives, they have no evidence to support their claims. There is little to no difference between the death rates in states with the death penalty and states without the death penalty.
The above websites are examples of how punishment doesn't always do what we think it is going to do. I used two websites about punishment of criminals, one about prison and one about the death penalty. Both websites state that these two forms of punishment do not do a very good job of deterring crime. I think this is saying something about how we are going about punishing our criminals. I understand that punishment is always going to be needed, because if we do not punish then people will run wild. But maybe considering the way we are going about these options will help a little bit.

There were some good points made in the article. I am still undecided on what method I believe works better when it comes to reinforcement and punishment. I would like to say reinforcement because it has a more positive twist. However, I think punishment can be more effective, depending on the circumstance. In my mind, I think reinforcement is more effective when it comes to parenting. When kids are always being told “no” or “don’t do that”, it seems to always have the opposite effect. If you were to reinforce their positive behaviors perhaps they would be more likely to behave in that manner in order to feel good about themselves like they did before. Punishment makes children feel bad about themselves and when they have a negative attitude towards their self worth, they are likely to act out in such a way.
After today’s discussion in class about the death penalty I am still up in the air about how I feel. In some cases I can understand how the death penalty could be justified. However, if someone is not found completely guilty, but the jury just passes the action of the person to be killed, there could be evidence later discovered that proves them wrong. Death is such a final thing and I don’t think it should be taken lightly at all. If they are unsure about something, or don’t have the evidence to back up their case 100%, they should not be executed. Simple as that. If children are always being told “no” and being punished, how are they supposed to learn how to develop healthy relationships later in life?

http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Alternatives%20in%20a%20Nutshell%207.30.09%5B1%5DFINAL.pdf
http://www.phdinparenting.com/2008/06/20/new-reason-why-punishment-doesnt-work-the-law/

Based on a behavioral perspective, I would side with Morris before the alternative plan given. I can say this because of knowledge learned in previous criminology courses; the punishment systems focus is to really look at the ACTION by the offender. This can lead to the point that if a person knows that they are the only one responsible they will see that it was their choice alone. In the USA we have a right to act (with a wide variety of limitations, but the bottom line is that we can act).That right to act is essential to the right to punish (and receive punishment). Within reasonable parameters, I feel that if people can choose to act, then they accept the right to punishment.

While looking in recent news, I’ve also considered the time between the action and the punishment. There are many issues that arise with various investigations and trials which can lead to the abuse of the right to punish. In the Troy Davis capital punishment the holes in the evidence have led to speculation whether or not Georgia killed the wrong man.
Bottom line is that I feel people have the right to punish if there is a right to act. BUT the right to punish others must be given to very few people that will do their job to the best of their ability. No one (or state) can run around “punishing” people that didn’t deserve it.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/corporal-punishment-schools/9742-1_53-50048181.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooPHNsFqb8M

After readong this article I believe that the best way to go about punishment is a shade of grey. The reason I say this is because there are always different variations in situations and they can't just be lumped together in one of two categories: to punish, or not to punish. For me it just doesn't seem that simple.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/does-punishment-work-reduce-crime
This article talked about how punishment can reduce the crime rate in America at first glance. Once you dig deeper into the idea with new laws and economic based ideas, it's not as simple as just punishment.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10021&page=349
This article talks about how repeat drug offenders don't respond to treatment as well as punishment. The reason for this is because people are threatened with punishment but don't respond to the treatment threat. So the only way they seem to respond positively is by actually partaking in the punishment administered. The way they are working treatment into punishment is by punishing people and then making them do mandatory treatment classes for drugs in prison.

When looking at this from a behavioral standpoint, my views vary. Although I do agree with Morris on that “what criminals do, according to Morris, is take more benefit than others have. Specifically, they take more freedom”. I believe everyone should have to follow the law. What is expected of me is what should be expected of others. So when people chose not to follow laws, or rules in any setting, they are setting themselves up for the possibility of punishment. Now, on the other hand, I don’t know if punishment is the correct answer. I believe that reinforcement would solve more than punishment would. Reinforcement is a good tool to use and often times a lot simpler. I believe that reinforcement should always be the first choice, but if it fails after several times, punishment might be necessary. The definition of punishment from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is “imposing some burden or by some form of deprivation or by withholding some benefit”. I believe this definition proves that punishment is harmful. I feel as is a lot of data has shown that punishment may work for quick fixes, but to sustain the effect, it is important to consider reinforcement first.

http://www.essortment.com/positive-reinforcement-vs-punishment-12116.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/

From a behavioral perspective, I believe punishment it is a strong strategy to correct the behavior. When we born we don´t know what it is right or wrong, we have policies, we live by rules and we follow them because our family, our environment teach us how to do it. As well we know since we are young that “cross the line” of the rules have consequences, the most of the times a bad one: punishment. So when we understand all the consequences of our behaviors we should avoid doing the “wrong” thing.

In my opinion, many times we try to have a good behavior to avoid the punishment, and this is a way of learning, for example when we do our bed just because if we don´t do it, our mum comes and scream with you. I thing the punishment is more powerful than reinforcement, because of the fear.

However there are many types of punishment and not always I agree with the type of punishment, death penalty is an example. Death penalty from a behavioral perspective doesn´t change the behavior of the person, it is not a warning it´s the end. There is no space for mistakes, for a learning behavior. In my opinion the jail should be a place for reintegration, a place to try change behaviors and a very interesting field for us, psychologists tries to discover how to do it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts

After reading this argument I have very mixed feelings about the justifications he makes. I believe that it really depends on the severity of the case in order to determine the right to punish or act on therapy as a mean of solving a situation. He also makes a point that therapy doesn’t respect the individual and punishment does which in my opinion doesn’t make sense. In an example of positive reinforcement in a classroom for instance no homework, bonus points, early outs, etc. are ways that teachers reinforce students with good behaviors. I also agree with Morris in the fact that a person’s act on breaking the law is a individual’s free will, but they also have consequences for that free will. In more extreme situations such as murder, rape, and child molestation I firmly believe that a death penalty should be set in place, but on the other end of the spectrum a child that misbehaves in public a form of reinforcement would be much better than punishment in the form of spanking. Spanking which is a form of negative punishment being the target behavior of spanking is an aversive behavior that actually in the long term makes a child misbehave much more often according to an article in www.time.com.
http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/specconn/main.php?cat=behavior§ion=main&subsection=classroom/positive
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Two points that stood out to me and influenced my thinking more so than the rest. The first Punishment is a way of restoring the balance. The second being therapy is a way of trying to keep the balance. I think Morris took an extreme side. I disagree with Morris and think that therapy offers a better option. Punishment is only good in extreme situations, such as murder. The only reason I see punishment this way is that it benefits society’s safety. It teaches no real lesson to the person who committed the crime; it just indefinitely stops them from committing it again. I don’t feel punishment works because it is inconsistent and doesn’t address the problem. As Morris says punishment restores that balance, it balances the freedom the criminals took from society. As I see it, it does nothing more than that; it balances the freedom taken.
Though, punishment balances the system, I do not see it as the better of the two options. Punishment is not effective; people who go to jail often go back. One of the articles I read stated “A Connecticut study released last year showed almost half of the inmates released in 1997returned to prison within three years.” I find that most statistics are similar, many former inmates return to prison. A fifty-fifty chance of a system working is terrible odds.
Therapy however teaches and rewards doing thing correctly. Reinforcement shows the person what to do correctly; punishment only acts when the wrong behavior comes about. Negative reinforcement as stated in my second article is that “ In negative reinforcement, discomfort is delivered when a desired behavior does not happen.” Positive reinforcement happens when the behavior is done correctly. Between positive and negative reinforcement I think it is the more effective choice.

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14835

http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/conditioning/reinforcement.htm

After reading this article I have mixed feelings about Morris' stance on punishment and therapy stance. I do believe that punishment is affective and needed, but I also don't think that it is always affective and will make the change that is necessary. I do not think that only reinforcement or therapy would be enough to keep people from doing wrong when they have no consequences. The therapy system I think would be affective in changing people, but I do agree that people still need to be help responsible for their actions, so perhaps punishment and therapy used together would be best. As far as him saying that we need to respect peoples choices and that therapy does not allow that does not quite make sense. Aren't we punishing them because we don't respect their choice and are trying to keep them from doing it again just like in therapy? I don't know, but I thought it was kind of a contradiction. Otherwise I do see his point that punishment is effective, I just believe that therapy along with punishment would be much more effective.

Morris states that punishment recognizes the fact the people have a choice when it comes to their actions. Punishment respects this concept of choice. Morris states that the therapy system is focused more on the future and does not enforce the idea that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Without having responsibility or punishment as a consequence, people are much less likely to stop their aversive behaviors.

It appears that the therapy system is a little bit like the idea of reinforcement. Therefore, from a behavioral standpoint, the punishment system is about decreasing aversive actions and the therapy system is about preventing the idea of aversive action occurring. Basically it is reinforcing the idea that the aversive actions don’t occur in the first place. However, it seems to talk to people and help them feel better even when they do something wrong. To me, it seems to reinforce behavior that should be punished. For this reason I find it difficult to back his therapy concept.

In most cases, it depends on how extreme the action on how the punishment system will work from a behavioral perspective. For example, using the death penalty as a punishment may work in warning future perpetrators, but it technically it does not teach the individual anything. However, it does cause the aversive action to decrease as the person will not be able to commit that, or any, crime again.

I feel however, that I am in favor of the punishment system as far as Morris’ blog is concerned. I believe that using the therapy system, in opposition to the punishment system, is too much like reinforcing someone’s aversive actions. For the fact that I believe punishment to be more final and effective I choose to be for it.
In support of my position: First of all, the therapy system seems to be a preventative in that it attempts to discourage people from breaking the balance to begin with, however, it has little force or authority to stop anyone from doing something aversive without also having a punishment attached.

Though I agree with Morris’ take on the punishment system, I will argue that extreme punishment in many cases is unacceptable. Morris seems to be an advocate of human life and the importance of choice and respect. When someone breaks the law, I believe that jail time is a reasonable punishment as it is common knowledge that that it is a possible outcome of breaking the law. I will caveat my opinion with the idea that I believe reinforcement is the best method for working with children (or perhaps a mixture of the two methods). I think that maybe punishment works better on adults in terms of legality.

My first URL links to an example that I found while looking for support on the punishment system. Instead, this article states how extreme punishment can be harmful. I think that it is important to recognize that extreme punishment is bad and dangerous and not the position argued by Morris and I don’t support it either. The article shows an example of extreme punishment which results in the death of a child. The child was essentially punished by his parents has they attempted to stop his aversive behaviors through negative punishment. They would punish him by denying him water or taking away his water. The punishment was extreme and obviously wrong. I feel like I agree with Morris’ idea of punishment, but I want to be sure to address that extreme punishment is, to me a category in itself.

The second URL I found interesting because it referred to crimes. It was a criminal score sheet. It shows the idea that we can “categorize” crime and punishment that correlates with it. In class today we talked about how and if punishment actually works on people that have committed murders and if the death penalty works. I believe that it is another case of extreme punishment, but I did find the punishment code score sheet to be highly interesting. I don’t know if I believe that punishment can be scored, but in terms of behavior and Morris’ blog, the chart shows that since human life deserves respect in that they know what is coming. Meaning they know what punishment to expect for their actions. It think that the punishment system and Morris would approve of the punishment code score sheet.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/daily-outrage/2011/08/extreme-punishment-dead-boy-s-parents-punished-him-denying-water

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNnews01.nsf/Articles/690F5826284B3B748525760B004729AA

I personally feel that it is silly to debate over which system is more effective. The effectiveness of a certain system depends entirely on the context of the situation and the person. Like said in the blog, therapy can be advantageous because it prevents future aversive consequences. For some individuals, therapy can change their behaviors for the better and teach them to respect people’s unalienable rights. Therapy reinforces them to be better citizens in society. Although it does not recognize past deviant behavior, it may prevent aversive behaviors in the future. What is the point of dwelling on the past when it cannot be changed? The future is what we need to worry about. However, for some individuals, therapy may not be effective or reinforcing. For those individuals, I feel that punishment is necessary so their aversive behaviors stop entirely. When punishment takes place, it ideally “distresses” the person enough for them to stop their deviant behaviors. If people fail to see or care about how their actions negatively affect others and society, they obviously need a consequence that is aversive enough to deter them from repeating that behavior again. In an ideal world, the presence of laws alone would be enough to reinforce people to respect people’s rights, but this is not the case. I feel that therapy or reinforcement should be encouraged before the use of punishment. If we can reinforce people to obey the laws, that would be best, rather than take away someone’s rights and make them “distressed”. We are really being hypocrites when we take away someone’s rights. We are then doing the same thing that the criminal is being punished for. But hey, I suppose we need to do what is most effective in order to protect society.
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/behprob.htm
This article discusses how schools should deter from punishment and focus on prevention strategies and “therapy”. Some of the prevention strategies listed are social skills training, emotional training, and character education. These programs attempt to reinforce good behavior with the addition of education that encourages integrity, self-discipline, and responsibility. When a child fails to obey the rules, the article states that schools should sit with the student and figure out what his/her underlying motives were. Then the student needs to recognize possible future aversive consequences. If the child continues to misbehave, then aversive consequences need to be enforced. Unfortunately, when aversive consequences occur (in the form of suspension or multiple detentions), students tend to develop negative feelings towards school. For many students, aversive consequences fail to stop deviant behavior, and sometimes make matters worse. This article supports my opinion because it states that prevention or therapy is ideal, but when that fails, aversive consequences need to be enforced. For some students, therapy or prevention is enough to stop them from emitting bad behaviors. It really depends on the student and the context or situation.
http://www.medindia.net/patients/patientinfo/sexual-deviance-therapies.htm
This article focuses on therapies for sexual deviants. It lists many therapies that may stop deviant sexual behavior. It also discusses the addition of aversive consequences or aversive conditioning (electric shocks, nausea inducing drugs). It all depends on the person which system is most effective, but it would be nice not to have to resort to electric shocks to punish behavior. Overall, the best and most effective system is different for each person and/or situation.

I think in the broad sense, I agree with most of what Morris says. He raises points that I have not thought about before. I think that when he discussed how punishment holds people responsible for their actions, he was right. When someone emits an aversive behavior, confronting them and punishing that behavior allows them to realize that they have done something wrong and they must accept responsibility for it. While punishment is being placed upon the person, they have a choice to either alter their aversive behavior or to continue and be punished again. Therefore, I agree with Morris’s view that the punishment system does respect someone’s choices. I think that this is both true with criminals and with children. One article I read listed some advantages of punishing a children’s bad behavior. The punished will learn what is expected of them. They may pay more attention to what they are doing, thus taking responsibility for it, and learn what behaviors are expected and not expected. If they know what the consequence of a specific behavior is, they have the choice to decide to emit that behavior again or not. As long as the punishment is consistent, severe enough, immediate, and aversive enough, the child will typically alter the aversive behavior to adhere to the more desirable behavior. As the article states, punishment when used with children also helps them learn valuable life skills. It elicits them to learn how to avoid similar situations in the future. Using punishment also may help parents learn about their children’s feelings. Children often act out because they are feeling something that they can’t explain. While it wouldn’t seem that punishments could help this, the article discusses how time outs can help break up the situation causing the bad behavior. Allowing the children the time to process what happens help them to accept responsibility for their behavior, as Morris pointed out, and allows them to have a valuable follow up. The parents can then exhibit how the children may turn the aversive feelings causing aversive behavior into desirable ones. As Morris says, punishment helps bring attention to past guilt, as displayed above. It seeks to bring back balance to the situation. In this sense, it also helps to prevent further upset of the balance. Therapy does not necessarily do both. If a child is misbehaving, using therapy may help them to deal with aversive feelings; however, they do not get immediate, important feedback on the aversive behaviors that they need to alter. While Morris applies his thoughts to criminals, I think they are very useful in explaining the benefits of punishment with children as I have exhibited.

My second article helps to show how Therapy may not be the better alternative, especially in cases of criminals. While I have always been on the rehabilitative side of prisons/etc., this article made me think of how punishment of criminals may be a better alternative. First off, criminals are pretty difficult to categorize if they haven’t upset the balance yet; therefore, you cannot use therapy for would-be criminals in order to prevent upsetting the balance. Therapy in this sense would be used to prevent it the aversive behavior from happening again, which punishment may be used to do as well as restore the balance. According to my article, punishment can have an advantage of being effective over the long-term and can alter behavior permanently. Isn’t this what we want from criminals? While therapy may also have permanent behavior alterations, it is a long process and is not always able to be transferred directly to outside behaviors. Punishment creates a fast decrease in aversive behavior if given right. In prisons, this is very important. Often times punishment is given for aversive behavior that may result in injury to oneself or others. Only reinforcing the desired behaviors does not tell the criminals exactly what behaviors are aversive and should be stopped. It also does not help them accept responsibility for those aversive behaviors if they are not pinpointed. As discussed, in order for a behavior to be successfully decreased, the punishment must be immediate. Therapy is something that is not immediate and even if you use it to help reduce bad behaviors, it will have little effect. Another important point that the article makes is that “the use of punishment is also considered important when it is difficult or impossible to identify the reinforcers that are contributing to the ongoing problematic behavior.” If you want to use therapy to alter a behavior, it is vital to know what reinforcers are already affecting the baseline of the behavior. I also think that people will tend to respond more enthusiastically if they perceive that they have a choice in the behavior. As Morris says, punishment does this and therapy does not. As an example, a criminal might have emitted an aversive behavior and is being punished. They then have the right to decide to continue with the aversive behavior and be punished or do something else (multiple possibilities) and not be punished. On the other hand, if they do something desirable, they may get reinforced for it. They then can only not do it and not get reinforced or in my eyes, be forced to do a specific behavior if they want something good to happen. The latter system does not focus on past guilt, it ignores it and focuses on preventing a future harm; therefore, they do not necessarily gain the skills they need to restore the balance of past guilt and turn those feelings into desired ones.

Even though I have argued in congruence with Morris’s points of the right to punishment that does not mean that punishment is good in every situation. There are many situations that differ and would elicit different approaches. If you have someone who is mentally ill, it may not be the best to use punishment only to show them what they should not do. It would be beneficial to teach them the right things to do instead. Their frame of mind is different in the fact that they would react differently to punishment than a regular population. The important points of punishment, swiftness, severe enough, and aversive enough, may elicit these individuals to respond in an aversive way. They may not be able to see the choices that would be more desired. They may not have the rational required to benefit from such a system. In this sense, I am not condoning that punishment is the better option and should be used whenever possible. I do think that reinforcement is a more sound approach in the long run, but I do agree with Morris’s points, in general, that we do have a right to punishment.

Article 1: http://www.livestrong.com/article/129582-advantages-punishing-children-bad-behavior/

Article 2: http://tracey-lloyd.suite101.com/using-punishment-in-behaviour-modification-a166857