The Roles of Punishment: More than the Offender

January 05, 2006

We're fairly appalled at the story (first spotted at Number 2 Pencil) of the pathological child rapist (his spree lasted 4 years with the same pre-teen victim) who's been given a mere 60-day prison sentence.

Even though at minimum confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett could have received 8 years in prison (we think 20 would be more appropriate), the kindly judge presiding over the sentencing had an epiphany:

But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works. "The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington [Vermont] courtroom.

Earth to Judge Cashman: It's not about anger, and it's not about you. It's about justice. Sadly, this judge's opinion on punishment mirrors those of many school administrators, who don't understand that there are three roles of punishment, only one of which involves the offender.

The three roles are Penalty, Protection, and Deterrence.

Penalty: When you commit a crime, you need to be penalized. Presumably this penalty isn't going to be fun or comfortable, and hopefully it will help you "learn your lesson" for next the time you consider breaking the rules or the law.

Bleeding-heart weepies like Cashman and lenient school administrators only recognize this first role, which they feel doesn't accomplish anything by itself (and reeks of vengence, natch). So let's just get rid of punishment and sing Kumbaya.

Judge Cashman also also revealed that he once handed down stiff sentences when he first got on the bench 25 years ago, but he no longer believes in punishment.

"I discovered it accomplishes nothing of value; it doesn't make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger," Cashman explained to the people in the court.

Writing in OpinionJournal, James Taranto replies:

Nothing of value? Locking Hulett up for 20 years would keep him out of circulation, unable to rape more little girls, until 2026, when he would be 54 years old. That in itself seems sufficient reason to do so.

Mr. Taranto nails the second role of punishment: protection.

Protection: Exclusionary punishments, where the offender is kept away from law-abiding folks (like prison terms or school suspensions and expulsions), serve not only to penalize the offender, but to protect the rest of the population. Especially with certain hardened souls (for whom the "penalty" aspect of punishment might not make a dent), they simply need to be kept away from the rest of us, not for their sake, but ours.

In schools, teachers need to teach without disruption, and students need to be free from threats of violence. So when students wantonly disrupt school or become violent or threatening, they simply need to be taken out of their regular classroom setting, for example by being suspended.

It is completely irrelevant that some young toughs treat suspension as a "vacation day" from school, the other students and their teachers need a vacation from Rotten Johnny, which is all that matters.

Of course if Johnny is a pathological offender, then simply follow due process and expel the miscreant. This serves as a permanent form of protection. Law-abiding students deserve no less, and long-suffering teachers can suffer just a little bit less after the expulsion. Again, it matters not what Johnny does with himself after expulsion, we're concerned here with the folks who act civilized and actually want to get an education, along with the teachers that can deliver it.

Deterrence: This is the "communication" aspect of punishment. When an offender is punished, it's like posting a billboard for all to see: "commit the crime, do the time." Of course for this to work the punishment must have significant penalty value (the first role of punishment), and be consistently enforced.

In the case of the Vermont child-rapist, the judge, in his infinite wisdom, is telegraphing to all other child molesters in the state that they can ply their sick trade at will, for they just might be treated with kid gloves at sentencing.

The same thing goes for schools and school districts. Oftentimes a school with an out-of-control discipline problem is in the same neighborhood--and serves the same kids--as another school with little or no such problem. The difference? The school which has less of a problem simply has a more effective discipline plan, which when consistently enforced speaks volumes to the rest of the students who are looking for a signal whether it's okay to misbehave.

Deterrence is surprisingly effective. Schools with strict and consistent discipline plans actually don't punish as many students proportionally as schools without effective plans. Schools that aren't afraid of expulsion have to use this tactic infrequently, since the potential Rotten Johnnies have long since learned it's a dead-end.

Lest you think that we're deluded as to human nature among youngsters, we're speaking from experience. While there are a few genuinely incorrigible Rotten Johnnies, for whom no amount of penalties will make them change their ways, there are a much greater amount of eager Johnny-emulators. All these pretenders need to step into Johnny's shoes is an environment that doesn't effectively handle discipline. Then all bets are off, as the school is overwhelmed by acts of disruption and violence from Johnnies and ersatz Johnnies alike.

All that's needed to bring order to this chaos is a fearless sheriff. It takes guts. Any new discipline plan in a chaotic school will be opposed for there will be initially be an exponential rise in detentions or suspensions, as rules begin to be enforced in a consistent manner. But it can work, and we've seen it happen.

An anecdote we've shared before bears repeating, about a Philadelphia middle school:

The school was in chaos, and a new principal was hired. This principal followed the four steps [set limits, pair them with consequences, communicate the plan, and follow through], without debate or discussion. The consequence for most serious violations (like the wanton disruption of school) was an out-of-school suspension, after which the parent had to "reinstate" Johnny or Suzie.

In the first month of school, massive numbers of children received suspensions, and the line of parents complaining about these new policies (while reinstating their children) stretched out of the main office and down the hallway.

The principal took each parent into his office, and it went something like this:

"Here is the rule, and here is the consequence of the rule. Both of these things have been taught to your child. Unfortunately, your son/daughter broke the rule, and received the consequence. Any questions?

"Next!"

Within two months, the students got the message, and the school became a civil place, where teaching and learning could blossom. The number of suspended students dropped to miniscule levels, once the students realized there was no use resisting this principal.

In our experience, the vast majority of student misbehavior is due to choice, not genetics. And children are no dummies, they understand when there's a tough, but fair, sheriff in town.

An Effective Trio: Although soft, sensitive types are offended at the penalty aspect of punishment, it is actually the protection and deterrence aspects that make the trio so effective.


Getting back to child-rapist Mark Hulett, there may be some value in his incarceration, however short, for fellow convicts don't take kindly to child molesters. Among criminals it's just not an honorable crime, so maybe they'll be able to mete out some Folsom-style "peer mediation."

Either way, he's still going to hell.