An additional reason for punishment would be for the criminal to pay back the damage done to the victim or to society, in the form of fines or forced labor. I'm uncertain about terminology, however. Anyone...? — Herbee 10:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are there any existing pages discussing justifications for punishment? (Utilitarian v. Retributive, etc.) Typos 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
From Gilbert Ryle's "Concept of Mind"; ISBN: 0226732967; p, 20
Yesselman
23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have corrected the psychological definition for punishment whicky1978 20:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is there an abuse template here? Punishment is not abuse. Typos 08:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the definition requirement of behaviour modification at odds with the Retribution section which says that the suffering from punishment can be construed as a good in itself? Retribution, in which I include vengeance, is intended to balance the evil without regard to whether it will change behaviour. Likewise, incapacitation as described is used when it is apparent that any punishment will be incapable of producing the desired behaviour modification. I looked you up here because of the relationship to free will. There it is argued whether it is proper to hold someone responsible for his misdeeds if the person is compelled by his nature rather than in possession of the free will to choose his actions. The answer depends in part on whether the goal of punishment is deterrence or vengeance. - JethroElfman 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
To JethroElfman - there's no reason to believe that all the reasons for punishment must apply in any given case; indeed, this may be impossible if some of the reasons conflict with each other. That's why the section is called "possible reasons for punishment".
To Bignole - Retributive theories of punishment have a long history. What you propose if basically a POV deletion.... in fact the Stanford Encyclopedia entry begins with the line "Punishment in its very conception is now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice". [1] So you can't impose your own POV here. Evercat 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I think it's you who's at odds with common sense. Certainly if you ask a lot of people why criminals should be punished many would simply say "because they deserve it". This IS one reason given by the man in the street, as well as politicians, religious leaders, philosophers, etc.
I think it's bizarre that you could say that if there's no change in behaviour (no rehabilitation) then it doesn't count as punishment. This certainly doesn't fit with the common English-language use of the word "punishment". A sentence such as "we punished him but he didn't change" makes perfect sense. Evercat 01:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not defining punishment in that section, I'm offering a list of possible justifications for it. I'm not saying I agree with this particular justifcation (I don't, actually).
If you want a definition of punishment, it's something like "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." (this again is from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy article).
It's clear to me at least that the ordinary meaning of the word "punishment" implies nothing about what sort of effects it has on behaviour. When I look up "punish" in my Chambers 20th Century Dictionary here, I see it says "to cause (one) to suffer for an offence". Nothing about behaviour modification in my dictionary. Evercat 01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I'm begining to understand you, but it sounds a bit behaviourist... :-) What I think you're saying is that, by definition, "punishment" == "stimulus that alters behaviour" or something similar... hmm... again I can only say that this isn't the definition commonly used by most people... Evercat 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's the 'ultimate' punishment (whether justified is another matter!) in the sense that it's the only one absolutely guaranteed to stop the criminal from ever offending again, so society's primary goal is reached by crushing the individual which failed to conform on an essential point; furthermore proponents argue (a highly disputed point) that the alledged deterrent effect will stop other potential offenders preventively, which should the serve society's goal indirectly even better. Criminal-oriented purposes of punishment, such as educational, are of course thus pushed aside, but to be a punishment it does not have to conform with all. Your apparently exclusively psycho(logical) approach is getting in the way again, while it is a fairly recent and never dominant factor in the mind of decisionmakers, punishees and public at large. Fastifex 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I hesitate to enter this debate, but on the question of the relationship between punishment, retribution and deterrence there is in the United Kingdom some statutory authority. In Scotland, when prisoners are sentenced to life imprisonment the court sets the "punishment part", a minimum period that must be spent in custody "to satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence".-- George Burgess 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Is locking up your children in a room or whatever considered abuse or is it accepted as valid non-violent punishment? Zachorious 01:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The rambling description of the boer punishment in this article seems totally out of place. Perhaps it should be in its own article.
So if punishment is more appropriately dubbed vengeance, is it child abuse? 206.131.49.107 14:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)a guy
Sounds relevant to me, IMHO.
Being challenged to a duel is not a punishment - it's an attempt to extract "satisfaction" or "honour". When an executioner punishes a criminal, there's not much chance of him being killed himself. AngryStan 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It struck me that Punire might come from Punic, in relation to what the romans did to the carthaginains at the end of the 3rd punic war. Does anybody have anything to say about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.118.42 ( talk • contribs)
Could negative punishment also mean taking away a yearly tradition or something that only happens once? I thought of this as an example: "Let's say a friend or member of your family invited you to a party, but your parents won't let you go because you made a false alarm 911 call." 66.191.115.61 ( talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)66.191.115.61
Would like to point out that punishment is not necessarily in response to a misdeed. OED definitions
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/punish?view=uk
• verb 1 impose a penalty on (someone) for an offence. 2 impose a penalty on someone for (an offence). 3 treat harshly or unfairly.
82.5.213.54 ( talk) 03:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Added "usually" to reflect this. 82.5.213.54 ( talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
"Garbage" is not really an effective description, and it is actually vague. Especially, for a well suited lead for this article. Apparently the previous lead has the support of three other editors. The pervious lead read as follows:
Punishment is the practice of imposing something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles.
One other editor, Stevertigo, persists in reverting the supported lead for a lone interpretation of what an overview for this article should say. This is over-riding the implicit support of other editors, for the view of one editor. This appears to indicate WP:OWN (ownership). Especially when flippantly discounting the above lead as "garbage", and just as flippantly reverting the more accurate lead. The current lead has a narrow scope compared to the broad scope encompassed by the above reverted lead. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition, I created a new section just below the introduction and placed his contribution to this article in that section. I think it is well written, and certainly worthy of inclusion at this time. However, this content belongs in a more narrowly defined section, rather than attempting to be a presentation for the article as a whole. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I made the changes to this article this week - developing the lede section to a substantial degree - before Modocc, JimWae, and Steve Quinn took any interest in this article or topic. Modocc followed me here after engaging me in debates on theology, while JimWae and Steve Quinn followed me here from articles related to the subject of time.
In spite of claims by Steve Quinn, the previous lede had no consensus or support. The lede which preceded mine was:
..language which was not only vague, but poorly written: The "imposition" of "something negative" on "a person or animal or property" part, alone disqualifies it from being acceptable as is, and the list of crimes "disobedience, defiance" and things "morally wrong" makes it at best draft writing in need of a rewrite. It seems strange then that these other editors have added sources after its writing in the pretense of supporting such inane and unusable text. That SQ would add to this the claim the above inaneness to be the "consensus" - in spite of having never worked on this article before I came along - means of course that he's not only here to harass, but to be completely disingenuous. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: Modocc wrote: "Stevertigo's revision is idealistic (as if there are no other actions punished other than destructive ones and by anyone other than society) and is better suited for a section on criminal justice." - I understand that "punishment" might have colloquial and idiomatic usage such that exceeds the boundaries of its general, normative definition. In two sentences, what language would you suggest could give treatment to the colloquial usages of "punishment?" Keep in mind that I've already mentioned abuse of justice and collective punishment. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 03:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 04:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Below is your alternate lead proposal.
I am changing the lead back to the consensus lead for two reasons. First, it is the established consensus lead (at least 4 to 1) Second the lead you have is a little disjointed, covers some of the ground, strays from the focus the consensus lead has, and once again includes the limited Christian version of religous punishment.
Moreover, it does not matter the length of the lead as long as it is an overview of what is in the article. The consensus lead does this and therefore complies with WP:LEAD, and it does not matter that it is only two lines. Also, other editors are not here to serve the view on only one sinlge editor. Hence, I placed your alternate lead here so we can discuss it. As it stands it is not as accurate as the consensus lead. It would be better to divide up the content and place it in othe sections or create new sections. Finally, I hope we can all address your concerns recently elucidated above. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a comments section below ----->
Punishment is the concept of an authority imposing corrections —often in the form of negative consequences or penalties —upon subjects (cf. legal persons) who commit actions which the authority deems destructive. Within human society, punishments are imposed either to educate individuals in the understanding of consequence in general, or to isolate and segregate individuals (incarceration, execution) who appear to be incapable of living within the boundaries of such consequence (ie. society). [1] [2] [3] Central to the idea of punishment are the concepts of reciprocity and retribution, as well as proportionality —such that punishments are made with fairness in mind. [1]
In human context, such destructive actions are typically called offenses, and range from minor infractions up to crimes and capital crimes. Such consequences may range from citations and fines, up to incarceration and, for capital crimes, the death penalty.
Collective punishment is an abuse of justice wherein large groups of people are "punished" for the offenses of individuals, or for actions or qualities which are subjectively deemed an "offense."
In the context of religion, divine punishment refers to the penalties given by God to human beings for the committing of sin —of which mortal sin is the most costly. Hell is the place in the afterlife where individuals are punished, in accord with divine law and divine judgment.
In contexts where animal behavior is under human scrutiny, the idea of "punishment" may be applied to animals. Pets are notably subject to corrective punishments by their human owners.
Punishment... refers to the authoritative imposition of something regarded as unpleasant on someone who has committed a breach of rules.
SQ wrote: "Unfortunately parsing the term "mortal sin" leads us down the path to WP:OR without reliable sources, and therefore cannot be used in an article." - Actually you are absolutely correct not. "Parsing terms" is not OR nor does it violate NOR. Let's put it this way: Not "parsing terms" properly might lead one to say things like 1) "..[a] Catholic view of religious justice ([i.e.] not Christian)" - asserting that Catholicism somehow isn't actually a part of Christianity (in fact its the largest part) and 2) "mortal sin is a [strictly] Catholic definition, and part of its doctrine" - even though the mortal sin article makes it quite clear that the concept is general to other Christian groups.
In any case, defining the term "mortal sin" solely according to its Catholic definitions is a case of BSM, and adhering to this definition is simply to argue that the term has only a specific meaning and not a general one. Most other Christian and non-Christian religions have beliefs which argue that certain kinds of sin (genocide for example) are heinous and therefore, in the context of divine justice, face mortal penalty. Ie. 'mortal sin.'
So, "parsing terms" is quite natural, and good editors must do it simply because our readership will do it anyway. Terms which are not "parsed" according to their sensible meanings will not get parsed even in accord with their accurate meanings, such as in your case with the two large errors above. So, before you accuse me of violating NOR, be sure you aren't just being wrong (WRONG). - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 20:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Punishment is the
authoritative imposition of something negative or
unpleasant on a person or animal who has committed a breach of rules or who behaves in a manner deemed wrong by an individual or group.
< r e f >
Peters, Richard Stanley (1966).
Ethics and Education. p. 267. Punishment... refers to the authoritative imposition of something regarded as unpleasant on someone who has committed a breach of rules.
In this context it sounds like property is a legal entity which can somehow be sanctioned or suffer consequences. It sounds like the legal entity is held to be distinct from the person, family, organization, or corporation, who, or which would otherwise own the property. This sounds similar to incorporating a business. When a business is incorporated it is a distinct legal entity and functions as such. Where to find material that explains this, regarding property? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
SQ wrote: "Written-out, concept associated material, in a Wikipedia article, has no association with a reliable published source." - What are you saying here? SQ wrote: "Hence, it is challengable and removable." - Certainly. But I am not accustomed to being followed around just to have my edits to any random article 'challenged and removed.' SQ wrote: "It is agreed this has presented small problematic scenarios, where minor quirks in the wording has motivated further investigation" - Ha. Its called 'cognition.' That we are civilly discussing what that cognition yields is called 'working toward consensus.' - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Full text
|
---|
Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group. Inflicted unpleasantness without authority is not punishment, but is characterized as something else. Punishment may be inflicted as a result of a formal process, or informally within any organized group, for example, a family. Punishment does not automatically cause deterrence, prevention, or reform, and hence, is not a guarentee these outcomes will occur. Furthermore, punishment can be part of a process of disciplining. Punishment also has justifications. For example, in the western societies there are four fundamental justificatins: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. Punishment is the concept of an authority imposing corrections —often in the form of negative consequences or penalties —upon subjects (cf. legal persons) who commit actions which the authority deems destructive. Within human society, punishments are imposed either to educate individuals in the understanding of consequence in general, or to isolate and segregate individuals (incarceration, execution) who appear to be incapable of living within the boundaries of such consequence (ie. society). Central to the idea of punishment are the concepts of reciprocity and retribution, as well as proportionality —such that punishments are made with fairness in mind. [1] In human context, such destructive actions are typically called offenses, and range from minor infractions up to crimes and capital crimes. Such consequences may range from citations and fines, up to incarceration and, for capital crimes, the death penalty. Collective punishment is an abuse of justice wherein large groups of people are "punished" for the offenses of individuals, or for actions or qualities which are subjectively deemed an "offense." In the context of religion, divine punishment refers to the penalties given by God to human beings for the committing of sin —of which mortal sin is the most costly. Hell is the place in the afterlife where individuals are punished, in accord with divine law and divine judgment. In contexts where animal behavior is under human scrutiny, the idea of "punishment" may be applied to animals. Pets are notably subject to corrective punishments by their human owners. |
Until I came along and you followed me here, the previous editors involved enough to talk it out on this page did so in June 2008 - over two years ago. The point being, contrary to what you claim, there are no "other editors" of this article.
Thus if I were to make a correction to the page, only to find you reverting it, it will of course indicate only that what you claim regarding another point —ie. your disinvolvement in this article —is not in fact true either. If it is, I will gladly make some improvements and will continue in my "happy editing" and try to imagine that your involvement here was well-motivated. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I am taking a break for a bit. The 3rd paragraph of the lede is a bit repetitive, especially the part about justifications & purposes. Perhaps someone else would like to take a crack at it. -- JimWae ( talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Collective punishment is not an abuse of justice all the time. In the U.S. military's bootcamps, this technique is effectively used as a learning tool for all. It is very important to realize that one person's behavior can impact the group. Group in this case can mean "squad" or even batallion. On a naval vessel it can effect a division, or the entire ship. For example, opening a door to the outside of the ship where it is white light on the inside can give a away the position of the ship. For a different example, when taking on fuel the smoking lamp is out. From the horses mouth so to speak - the U.S. Navy - pertaining to the smoking lamp :
I can agree that sometimes it is not an abuse. If it is part of training or discipline of a group, it could be justified. It is also abused as a justification sometimes. -- JimWae ( talk) 05:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The words "something negative or unpleasant" are vague. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Defining "punishment" in terms of "penalty" is cicular because "penalty" is defined in terms of "punishment". Sometimes circularity is unavoidable, but in this case it is avoidable. "Something negative or unpleasant" is not circular & defines punishment in terms of simpler concepts. Linking to penalty does no good since it is a disambig page. Also, the sources themselves say "something negative or unpleasant". Something negative and unpleasant CAN be SEVERELY negative & SEVERLY unpleasant - or not. If anyone has a better wording that clears all the hurdles, let's hear it. JimWae ( talk) 05:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
PS: To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction (my first):
- Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 04:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials by Diana Kendall uses a definition of Punishment as "Any action designed to deprive a person of things of value (including liberty) because of some offense the person is thought to have committed". This definition gets around some of the problems with the current lead definition: One of the problems with the current lead is the way it doesn't explain "authority" and its relation to punishment. The authority involved is in fact the ethical or legal system that the one applying the punishment is appealing to. This is already inherent in the statement "deemed wrong" - if something is "deemed wrong" it is deemed wrong in relation to an ethical or legal system. The authority part is redundant, and makes the passage unclear. The phrase Punishment has justifications is doubly redundant - because punishment cannot be applied if it is not thought to be justified - that is if it is not based on a legal or ethical value system. Also the four "justifications" are not justifications they are goals. Sociology in our times (p. 204) describe the deterrence, retribution, incapacitacion and rehabilitation as being historically traditional, but it also describes new goals of punishment in modern societies e.g. restoration. So those four are not the only goals of punishment in western societies. Also the phrase "punishment can also be part of a process of disciplining" this is also redundant because it is inherent in two of four goals of punihsment - rehabilitation and deterrnce - both of which are aimed at making the punished person conform to social norms in future behaviour i.e. disciplining him. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I note that the lede has improved a bit. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 00:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC) -
According to Peters - metaphorical punishment is not the only alternate condition for experiencing unpleastness ,i.e., a negative experience, such as "taking a lot of punishment from their opponents". Experiencing unpleasantness can occur from another person's spite, for example - and that is according to Peters. Also, with his three criteria, I think Peters has actually given the best general description of punishment, so far. In any case, I am altering this sentence slightly, I think it gives the wrong idea. Other feedback to follow. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I spoke too soon, when I wrote (in the edit summar) "go from the three criteria and build from there". I think the coverage of the lede is sufficient. It is just that I was impressed with the concept when I read it this last time.---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that alot of this article appears to be original research. I am not saying that it is - only that it appears to be that way. I think a rewrite after the lede is in order. The lede is still in good condition. I removed text from one section - please see the edit history of the article. I might look for an earlier version that is better. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed more text from the article (after the lede). It may be a question of not knowing the scope of misinformation that was contained in the article. In any case, I removed unsourced statements that may be or may not be WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, WP:SYN, speculation, random thoughts, or essay material. Now we can write a much better, and sourced article. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
“ | The more cynical among us might consider the phrase correctional process as a euphemism for what is more aptly termed the punishment process, and we would be right. [ref omitted] The correctional enterprise is preeminently about punishment, but, if something positve results from that punishment (such as cessation of criminal behavior), it is a bonus. Earlier scholars wre more honest, calling what we now call corrections by the name penology, which means the study of punishment for crime. No matter what we call our prisions, jails, and other systems of formal social control, we are compelling people to do what they do not want to do, and such arm-twising is experienced by them as punitive regardless of what we call it. | ” |
From Stohr et al. p. 2. The emphasis is in original. By the way, I'm uncomfortable with large amount of quotes used in this article. They may be considered WP:COPYVIO given that practically every source had a paragraph quoted verbatim. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 01:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I see you've requested a quote on that as well, here it goes:
“ | Can you imagine a society in which punishment did not exist? What would such a society be like; could it survive? If you cannont realistically imagine such a society you are not alone, for the desire to punish those who have harmed us or otherwise cheated on the social contract is as od the species itself. Punishment (referred to as moralistic or retaliatory aggression) aimed at discouraging cheats is also
observed in every social species of animal, leading evolutionary biologists to conclude that punishment is an evolutionarily stable strategy designed [sic] by natural selection both for the emergence and the maintenance of cooperative behaviors. [4 citations] Imaging of the human brain via positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provides hard evidence that positive feelings accompany the punishment of those who have wronged us and that punishing others reduces the negative feelings evoked when we are wronged. Neuroimaging studies such as these show that, when [the] subjects punished cheats, even at a cost to themselves, they had significantly increased blood flow to areas of the brain that respond to reward, suggesting that punishing those who have wronged us provides emotional relief and reward for the punisher [2 citations]. These studies strongly imply that we are hard wired to "get even", as suggested by the popular saying "revenge is sweet". ¶ Sociologists will note the similarity of the evolutionary argument with Emile Durkheim's (1893/1964) contention that crime and punishment are central to social life. Durkheim considers crime as normal in the sense that it exists in every society and that criminal behavior is in everyone's behavioral repertoire. Punishing criminals maintains solidarity, in part, because the rituals of punishment reaffirm the justness of the social norms, particularly those concerning cooperation among society's members. Punishment is functional because it defines the boundaries of he acceptable behavior and allows citizens to express their moral outrage. [goes in more depth on Durkheim, not so relevant here] |
” |
Hope this helps. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 10:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If the lead is going to fixate on criminal punishment (after my recent edits, it does not), it needs to say so explicitly. But then, would not punishment in the large also deserve its own page? — MaxEnt 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Simplify, man. Vranak ( talk) 05:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
An additional reason for punishment would be for the criminal to pay back the damage done to the victim or to society, in the form of fines or forced labor. I'm uncertain about terminology, however. Anyone...? — Herbee 10:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are there any existing pages discussing justifications for punishment? (Utilitarian v. Retributive, etc.) Typos 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
From Gilbert Ryle's "Concept of Mind"; ISBN: 0226732967; p, 20
Yesselman
23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have corrected the psychological definition for punishment whicky1978 20:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is there an abuse template here? Punishment is not abuse. Typos 08:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the definition requirement of behaviour modification at odds with the Retribution section which says that the suffering from punishment can be construed as a good in itself? Retribution, in which I include vengeance, is intended to balance the evil without regard to whether it will change behaviour. Likewise, incapacitation as described is used when it is apparent that any punishment will be incapable of producing the desired behaviour modification. I looked you up here because of the relationship to free will. There it is argued whether it is proper to hold someone responsible for his misdeeds if the person is compelled by his nature rather than in possession of the free will to choose his actions. The answer depends in part on whether the goal of punishment is deterrence or vengeance. - JethroElfman 01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
To JethroElfman - there's no reason to believe that all the reasons for punishment must apply in any given case; indeed, this may be impossible if some of the reasons conflict with each other. That's why the section is called "possible reasons for punishment".
To Bignole - Retributive theories of punishment have a long history. What you propose if basically a POV deletion.... in fact the Stanford Encyclopedia entry begins with the line "Punishment in its very conception is now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice". [1] So you can't impose your own POV here. Evercat 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I think it's you who's at odds with common sense. Certainly if you ask a lot of people why criminals should be punished many would simply say "because they deserve it". This IS one reason given by the man in the street, as well as politicians, religious leaders, philosophers, etc.
I think it's bizarre that you could say that if there's no change in behaviour (no rehabilitation) then it doesn't count as punishment. This certainly doesn't fit with the common English-language use of the word "punishment". A sentence such as "we punished him but he didn't change" makes perfect sense. Evercat 01:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not defining punishment in that section, I'm offering a list of possible justifications for it. I'm not saying I agree with this particular justifcation (I don't, actually).
If you want a definition of punishment, it's something like "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." (this again is from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy article).
It's clear to me at least that the ordinary meaning of the word "punishment" implies nothing about what sort of effects it has on behaviour. When I look up "punish" in my Chambers 20th Century Dictionary here, I see it says "to cause (one) to suffer for an offence". Nothing about behaviour modification in my dictionary. Evercat 01:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I'm begining to understand you, but it sounds a bit behaviourist... :-) What I think you're saying is that, by definition, "punishment" == "stimulus that alters behaviour" or something similar... hmm... again I can only say that this isn't the definition commonly used by most people... Evercat 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's the 'ultimate' punishment (whether justified is another matter!) in the sense that it's the only one absolutely guaranteed to stop the criminal from ever offending again, so society's primary goal is reached by crushing the individual which failed to conform on an essential point; furthermore proponents argue (a highly disputed point) that the alledged deterrent effect will stop other potential offenders preventively, which should the serve society's goal indirectly even better. Criminal-oriented purposes of punishment, such as educational, are of course thus pushed aside, but to be a punishment it does not have to conform with all. Your apparently exclusively psycho(logical) approach is getting in the way again, while it is a fairly recent and never dominant factor in the mind of decisionmakers, punishees and public at large. Fastifex 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I hesitate to enter this debate, but on the question of the relationship between punishment, retribution and deterrence there is in the United Kingdom some statutory authority. In Scotland, when prisoners are sentenced to life imprisonment the court sets the "punishment part", a minimum period that must be spent in custody "to satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence".-- George Burgess 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Is locking up your children in a room or whatever considered abuse or is it accepted as valid non-violent punishment? Zachorious 01:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The rambling description of the boer punishment in this article seems totally out of place. Perhaps it should be in its own article.
So if punishment is more appropriately dubbed vengeance, is it child abuse? 206.131.49.107 14:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)a guy
Sounds relevant to me, IMHO.
Being challenged to a duel is not a punishment - it's an attempt to extract "satisfaction" or "honour". When an executioner punishes a criminal, there's not much chance of him being killed himself. AngryStan 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It struck me that Punire might come from Punic, in relation to what the romans did to the carthaginains at the end of the 3rd punic war. Does anybody have anything to say about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.118.42 ( talk • contribs)
Could negative punishment also mean taking away a yearly tradition or something that only happens once? I thought of this as an example: "Let's say a friend or member of your family invited you to a party, but your parents won't let you go because you made a false alarm 911 call." 66.191.115.61 ( talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)66.191.115.61
Would like to point out that punishment is not necessarily in response to a misdeed. OED definitions
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/punish?view=uk
• verb 1 impose a penalty on (someone) for an offence. 2 impose a penalty on someone for (an offence). 3 treat harshly or unfairly.
82.5.213.54 ( talk) 03:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Added "usually" to reflect this. 82.5.213.54 ( talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
"Garbage" is not really an effective description, and it is actually vague. Especially, for a well suited lead for this article. Apparently the previous lead has the support of three other editors. The pervious lead read as follows:
Punishment is the practice of imposing something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal or property, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles.
One other editor, Stevertigo, persists in reverting the supported lead for a lone interpretation of what an overview for this article should say. This is over-riding the implicit support of other editors, for the view of one editor. This appears to indicate WP:OWN (ownership). Especially when flippantly discounting the above lead as "garbage", and just as flippantly reverting the more accurate lead. The current lead has a narrow scope compared to the broad scope encompassed by the above reverted lead. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In addition, I created a new section just below the introduction and placed his contribution to this article in that section. I think it is well written, and certainly worthy of inclusion at this time. However, this content belongs in a more narrowly defined section, rather than attempting to be a presentation for the article as a whole. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 06:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I made the changes to this article this week - developing the lede section to a substantial degree - before Modocc, JimWae, and Steve Quinn took any interest in this article or topic. Modocc followed me here after engaging me in debates on theology, while JimWae and Steve Quinn followed me here from articles related to the subject of time.
In spite of claims by Steve Quinn, the previous lede had no consensus or support. The lede which preceded mine was:
..language which was not only vague, but poorly written: The "imposition" of "something negative" on "a person or animal or property" part, alone disqualifies it from being acceptable as is, and the list of crimes "disobedience, defiance" and things "morally wrong" makes it at best draft writing in need of a rewrite. It seems strange then that these other editors have added sources after its writing in the pretense of supporting such inane and unusable text. That SQ would add to this the claim the above inaneness to be the "consensus" - in spite of having never worked on this article before I came along - means of course that he's not only here to harass, but to be completely disingenuous. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: Modocc wrote: "Stevertigo's revision is idealistic (as if there are no other actions punished other than destructive ones and by anyone other than society) and is better suited for a section on criminal justice." - I understand that "punishment" might have colloquial and idiomatic usage such that exceeds the boundaries of its general, normative definition. In two sentences, what language would you suggest could give treatment to the colloquial usages of "punishment?" Keep in mind that I've already mentioned abuse of justice and collective punishment. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 03:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 04:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Below is your alternate lead proposal.
I am changing the lead back to the consensus lead for two reasons. First, it is the established consensus lead (at least 4 to 1) Second the lead you have is a little disjointed, covers some of the ground, strays from the focus the consensus lead has, and once again includes the limited Christian version of religous punishment.
Moreover, it does not matter the length of the lead as long as it is an overview of what is in the article. The consensus lead does this and therefore complies with WP:LEAD, and it does not matter that it is only two lines. Also, other editors are not here to serve the view on only one sinlge editor. Hence, I placed your alternate lead here so we can discuss it. As it stands it is not as accurate as the consensus lead. It would be better to divide up the content and place it in othe sections or create new sections. Finally, I hope we can all address your concerns recently elucidated above. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a comments section below ----->
Punishment is the concept of an authority imposing corrections —often in the form of negative consequences or penalties —upon subjects (cf. legal persons) who commit actions which the authority deems destructive. Within human society, punishments are imposed either to educate individuals in the understanding of consequence in general, or to isolate and segregate individuals (incarceration, execution) who appear to be incapable of living within the boundaries of such consequence (ie. society). [1] [2] [3] Central to the idea of punishment are the concepts of reciprocity and retribution, as well as proportionality —such that punishments are made with fairness in mind. [1]
In human context, such destructive actions are typically called offenses, and range from minor infractions up to crimes and capital crimes. Such consequences may range from citations and fines, up to incarceration and, for capital crimes, the death penalty.
Collective punishment is an abuse of justice wherein large groups of people are "punished" for the offenses of individuals, or for actions or qualities which are subjectively deemed an "offense."
In the context of religion, divine punishment refers to the penalties given by God to human beings for the committing of sin —of which mortal sin is the most costly. Hell is the place in the afterlife where individuals are punished, in accord with divine law and divine judgment.
In contexts where animal behavior is under human scrutiny, the idea of "punishment" may be applied to animals. Pets are notably subject to corrective punishments by their human owners.
Punishment... refers to the authoritative imposition of something regarded as unpleasant on someone who has committed a breach of rules.
SQ wrote: "Unfortunately parsing the term "mortal sin" leads us down the path to WP:OR without reliable sources, and therefore cannot be used in an article." - Actually you are absolutely correct not. "Parsing terms" is not OR nor does it violate NOR. Let's put it this way: Not "parsing terms" properly might lead one to say things like 1) "..[a] Catholic view of religious justice ([i.e.] not Christian)" - asserting that Catholicism somehow isn't actually a part of Christianity (in fact its the largest part) and 2) "mortal sin is a [strictly] Catholic definition, and part of its doctrine" - even though the mortal sin article makes it quite clear that the concept is general to other Christian groups.
In any case, defining the term "mortal sin" solely according to its Catholic definitions is a case of BSM, and adhering to this definition is simply to argue that the term has only a specific meaning and not a general one. Most other Christian and non-Christian religions have beliefs which argue that certain kinds of sin (genocide for example) are heinous and therefore, in the context of divine justice, face mortal penalty. Ie. 'mortal sin.'
So, "parsing terms" is quite natural, and good editors must do it simply because our readership will do it anyway. Terms which are not "parsed" according to their sensible meanings will not get parsed even in accord with their accurate meanings, such as in your case with the two large errors above. So, before you accuse me of violating NOR, be sure you aren't just being wrong (WRONG). - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 20:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Punishment is the
authoritative imposition of something negative or
unpleasant on a person or animal who has committed a breach of rules or who behaves in a manner deemed wrong by an individual or group.
< r e f >
Peters, Richard Stanley (1966).
Ethics and Education. p. 267. Punishment... refers to the authoritative imposition of something regarded as unpleasant on someone who has committed a breach of rules.
In this context it sounds like property is a legal entity which can somehow be sanctioned or suffer consequences. It sounds like the legal entity is held to be distinct from the person, family, organization, or corporation, who, or which would otherwise own the property. This sounds similar to incorporating a business. When a business is incorporated it is a distinct legal entity and functions as such. Where to find material that explains this, regarding property? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
SQ wrote: "Written-out, concept associated material, in a Wikipedia article, has no association with a reliable published source." - What are you saying here? SQ wrote: "Hence, it is challengable and removable." - Certainly. But I am not accustomed to being followed around just to have my edits to any random article 'challenged and removed.' SQ wrote: "It is agreed this has presented small problematic scenarios, where minor quirks in the wording has motivated further investigation" - Ha. Its called 'cognition.' That we are civilly discussing what that cognition yields is called 'working toward consensus.' - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Full text
|
---|
Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group. Inflicted unpleasantness without authority is not punishment, but is characterized as something else. Punishment may be inflicted as a result of a formal process, or informally within any organized group, for example, a family. Punishment does not automatically cause deterrence, prevention, or reform, and hence, is not a guarentee these outcomes will occur. Furthermore, punishment can be part of a process of disciplining. Punishment also has justifications. For example, in the western societies there are four fundamental justificatins: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. Punishment is the concept of an authority imposing corrections —often in the form of negative consequences or penalties —upon subjects (cf. legal persons) who commit actions which the authority deems destructive. Within human society, punishments are imposed either to educate individuals in the understanding of consequence in general, or to isolate and segregate individuals (incarceration, execution) who appear to be incapable of living within the boundaries of such consequence (ie. society). Central to the idea of punishment are the concepts of reciprocity and retribution, as well as proportionality —such that punishments are made with fairness in mind. [1] In human context, such destructive actions are typically called offenses, and range from minor infractions up to crimes and capital crimes. Such consequences may range from citations and fines, up to incarceration and, for capital crimes, the death penalty. Collective punishment is an abuse of justice wherein large groups of people are "punished" for the offenses of individuals, or for actions or qualities which are subjectively deemed an "offense." In the context of religion, divine punishment refers to the penalties given by God to human beings for the committing of sin —of which mortal sin is the most costly. Hell is the place in the afterlife where individuals are punished, in accord with divine law and divine judgment. In contexts where animal behavior is under human scrutiny, the idea of "punishment" may be applied to animals. Pets are notably subject to corrective punishments by their human owners. |
Until I came along and you followed me here, the previous editors involved enough to talk it out on this page did so in June 2008 - over two years ago. The point being, contrary to what you claim, there are no "other editors" of this article.
Thus if I were to make a correction to the page, only to find you reverting it, it will of course indicate only that what you claim regarding another point —ie. your disinvolvement in this article —is not in fact true either. If it is, I will gladly make some improvements and will continue in my "happy editing" and try to imagine that your involvement here was well-motivated. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I am taking a break for a bit. The 3rd paragraph of the lede is a bit repetitive, especially the part about justifications & purposes. Perhaps someone else would like to take a crack at it. -- JimWae ( talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Collective punishment is not an abuse of justice all the time. In the U.S. military's bootcamps, this technique is effectively used as a learning tool for all. It is very important to realize that one person's behavior can impact the group. Group in this case can mean "squad" or even batallion. On a naval vessel it can effect a division, or the entire ship. For example, opening a door to the outside of the ship where it is white light on the inside can give a away the position of the ship. For a different example, when taking on fuel the smoking lamp is out. From the horses mouth so to speak - the U.S. Navy - pertaining to the smoking lamp :
I can agree that sometimes it is not an abuse. If it is part of training or discipline of a group, it could be justified. It is also abused as a justification sometimes. -- JimWae ( talk) 05:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The words "something negative or unpleasant" are vague. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Defining "punishment" in terms of "penalty" is cicular because "penalty" is defined in terms of "punishment". Sometimes circularity is unavoidable, but in this case it is avoidable. "Something negative or unpleasant" is not circular & defines punishment in terms of simpler concepts. Linking to penalty does no good since it is a disambig page. Also, the sources themselves say "something negative or unpleasant". Something negative and unpleasant CAN be SEVERELY negative & SEVERLY unpleasant - or not. If anyone has a better wording that clears all the hurdles, let's hear it. JimWae ( talk) 05:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
PS: To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction (my first):
- Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 04:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials by Diana Kendall uses a definition of Punishment as "Any action designed to deprive a person of things of value (including liberty) because of some offense the person is thought to have committed". This definition gets around some of the problems with the current lead definition: One of the problems with the current lead is the way it doesn't explain "authority" and its relation to punishment. The authority involved is in fact the ethical or legal system that the one applying the punishment is appealing to. This is already inherent in the statement "deemed wrong" - if something is "deemed wrong" it is deemed wrong in relation to an ethical or legal system. The authority part is redundant, and makes the passage unclear. The phrase Punishment has justifications is doubly redundant - because punishment cannot be applied if it is not thought to be justified - that is if it is not based on a legal or ethical value system. Also the four "justifications" are not justifications they are goals. Sociology in our times (p. 204) describe the deterrence, retribution, incapacitacion and rehabilitation as being historically traditional, but it also describes new goals of punishment in modern societies e.g. restoration. So those four are not the only goals of punishment in western societies. Also the phrase "punishment can also be part of a process of disciplining" this is also redundant because it is inherent in two of four goals of punihsment - rehabilitation and deterrnce - both of which are aimed at making the punished person conform to social norms in future behaviour i.e. disciplining him. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I note that the lede has improved a bit. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 00:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC) -
According to Peters - metaphorical punishment is not the only alternate condition for experiencing unpleastness ,i.e., a negative experience, such as "taking a lot of punishment from their opponents". Experiencing unpleasantness can occur from another person's spite, for example - and that is according to Peters. Also, with his three criteria, I think Peters has actually given the best general description of punishment, so far. In any case, I am altering this sentence slightly, I think it gives the wrong idea. Other feedback to follow. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I spoke too soon, when I wrote (in the edit summar) "go from the three criteria and build from there". I think the coverage of the lede is sufficient. It is just that I was impressed with the concept when I read it this last time.---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing that alot of this article appears to be original research. I am not saying that it is - only that it appears to be that way. I think a rewrite after the lede is in order. The lede is still in good condition. I removed text from one section - please see the edit history of the article. I might look for an earlier version that is better. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed more text from the article (after the lede). It may be a question of not knowing the scope of misinformation that was contained in the article. In any case, I removed unsourced statements that may be or may not be WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, WP:SYN, speculation, random thoughts, or essay material. Now we can write a much better, and sourced article. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
“ | The more cynical among us might consider the phrase correctional process as a euphemism for what is more aptly termed the punishment process, and we would be right. [ref omitted] The correctional enterprise is preeminently about punishment, but, if something positve results from that punishment (such as cessation of criminal behavior), it is a bonus. Earlier scholars wre more honest, calling what we now call corrections by the name penology, which means the study of punishment for crime. No matter what we call our prisions, jails, and other systems of formal social control, we are compelling people to do what they do not want to do, and such arm-twising is experienced by them as punitive regardless of what we call it. | ” |
From Stohr et al. p. 2. The emphasis is in original. By the way, I'm uncomfortable with large amount of quotes used in this article. They may be considered WP:COPYVIO given that practically every source had a paragraph quoted verbatim. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 01:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I see you've requested a quote on that as well, here it goes:
“ | Can you imagine a society in which punishment did not exist? What would such a society be like; could it survive? If you cannont realistically imagine such a society you are not alone, for the desire to punish those who have harmed us or otherwise cheated on the social contract is as od the species itself. Punishment (referred to as moralistic or retaliatory aggression) aimed at discouraging cheats is also
observed in every social species of animal, leading evolutionary biologists to conclude that punishment is an evolutionarily stable strategy designed [sic] by natural selection both for the emergence and the maintenance of cooperative behaviors. [4 citations] Imaging of the human brain via positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provides hard evidence that positive feelings accompany the punishment of those who have wronged us and that punishing others reduces the negative feelings evoked when we are wronged. Neuroimaging studies such as these show that, when [the] subjects punished cheats, even at a cost to themselves, they had significantly increased blood flow to areas of the brain that respond to reward, suggesting that punishing those who have wronged us provides emotional relief and reward for the punisher [2 citations]. These studies strongly imply that we are hard wired to "get even", as suggested by the popular saying "revenge is sweet". ¶ Sociologists will note the similarity of the evolutionary argument with Emile Durkheim's (1893/1964) contention that crime and punishment are central to social life. Durkheim considers crime as normal in the sense that it exists in every society and that criminal behavior is in everyone's behavioral repertoire. Punishing criminals maintains solidarity, in part, because the rituals of punishment reaffirm the justness of the social norms, particularly those concerning cooperation among society's members. Punishment is functional because it defines the boundaries of he acceptable behavior and allows citizens to express their moral outrage. [goes in more depth on Durkheim, not so relevant here] |
” |
Hope this helps. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 10:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If the lead is going to fixate on criminal punishment (after my recent edits, it does not), it needs to say so explicitly. But then, would not punishment in the large also deserve its own page? — MaxEnt 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Simplify, man. Vranak ( talk) 05:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)