Punishment or Reward?

[Ullion]

Just as the question asks. What do you think is better to have in society: More punishment or more reward?

I personally think we need more punishment. If we had more reward, then only people that do good things get rewarded, and then the bad people can go off and committ bad deeds without being punished as severely. However, if we add more punishment, then we can tortue the bad people, make everyone hear their screams; then we kill the person. This tells everyone that nothing bad will be tolerated and that if they commit something bad: they die. It gets the emssage in their mind not to do anything bad. Then with so many people not being bad anymore, they start to turn good therefor society is a nicer place to be.

 

[Chikara]

I'm not sure if you're talking about PC or the government, but I'd definetly say punishment.

 

[peabobo's sexy legs]

I didn't understand the question. So i picked presents. =P

 

[Ftkatyowser]

There should be more reward in society. Why? Simple. To quote V for Vendetta: "People should not be afraid of the government, Government should be afraid of the people." The more fear you instill in someone, the more likley there is to be a revolt against the goverment. It goes back to the Principles of John Locke- the government is chosen by the people to represent them and with their best intrests at heart. If people get punished left and right for bad things, is it really in the best intrests of the people? It's more like brainwashing them to get them to agree with what the government wants.

If you give people rewards for doing good things, then there will be more good in the world. You will always have bad people, no matter what. But to promote goodwill will spread goodwill.

 

[Drifblim]

I really think more punishment, but not that much more. Some punishments these days, such as a recent case of a man who was jailed for 200 years for looking at child porn, are disproportionate, yet at the same time there are rapes that go off with cautions.

 

[Ben Kenobi]

More punishment. Rewarding people who behave in a negative way incentive to stop, which would be unfair on those who always behave in the way they are expected who go unnoticed and rewarding someone is basically saying "I give up" and taking the easy way out, so nobody learns. Plus I'm sick, quite frankly of the "punishments" given out to people who I have encountered in the past.

As far as punishment goes, I'm not for capital punishment. I'm just for deterring people with a punishment. You're almost allowed to murder someone and get away with it by saying it was an "accident". My mother and one of her friends were hit by a motorcyclist (no serious injuries) who got away on the basis it was an accident and to be honest, the police/council are being lax about things like this at their own convenience.

 

[~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~]

I really didn't understand the question but I'll go with Punishment because there are more crimes now


:t354:tatsujin gosuto

 

[Legacy]

Punishments should be much harsher, especially for so called "petty" crimes. Muggers should serve at least six months in prison. More than that if they were wielding a weapon.

Harsher punishments would deter a lot of the more common crimes. I mean, you'd have to be a complete idiot to risk six months in prison just for the sake of a cell phone or iPod.

 

[Richard Lynch]

From a psychological stance, punishment is an iffy topic. A form of conditioning that is VERY hard to get completely right. Positive reinforcement (reward) is much more likely to work, to be honest.

And actually, Queen Boo, there are more crimes now, but there are also more death penalties. It's shown that the death penalty does not stop crimes, especially when it comes to murder. There are three main types of murder: Murder for profit, murder by passion, and murder by compulsion.

Murder for profit is like where a guy knocks off his wife to get her insurance money. This can't be deterred, because the criminal is always convinced he will not be caught, no matter what. Murder of passion (killing someone in the heat of rage, to be exact) can not be stopped because the criminal is temporarily insane, and the mind doesn't function correctly. And murder by compulsion (serial killers) can not, and will never, be stopped because it turns into an obsession and ritual/habit that MUST be appeased, while they are fully aware that they may be caught.

It's a bit bleak... but it works out.

So for the question at hand, I vote Reward, because Punishment is too hard to use correctly (in the idea of operant conditioning), and can never be 100% effective.

 

[Punishment]

I'm going with my username. XD

Just as the idea of shock therapy works on animals and an infant child I believe implementing accpetable forms of punishment will deter most people from certain action.

 

[Ullion]

I did post about "Society", so unless you think PC is society, then you could answer for PC... but I had thought society would have meant the country/state/world/province.. that kinda stuff.

Anyways, like Richard said, there is a correllation showing that in states that have the death penalties also have higher crime rates. But I believe the correllation is the exact opposite, there is the death penalty in that state BECAUSE there are such high crime rates.

Also, you can't say punishments fails. For example, when Russia used to be the USSR and was a communist country, they had stricter rules, and kind of went by my example; you go against the law, you die. And guess what? They had extremely low crime rates. So yes, communist is a good form of governement, at times. It really depends on the status of the country though. v____v ANyways, everysince Russia became Democratic, there crime rates have increased dramatically. Which proves the theory that punishments does work.

But also, the thread asks which do you think society should use more, not which is more effective. Although if you think one method should be used more... than in your opinion it would be more effective. ._.;

 

[Lily]

Neither. Both needs each other to work effectively. Rewards will make heads swell; punishment will break a person.

 

[Richard Lynch]

I'm going with my username. XD

Just as the idea of shock therapy works on animals and an infant child I believe implementing accpetable forms of punishment will deter most people from certain action.

There's a HUGE difference between shock therapy and shocking as a form of classical conditioning. Shock therapy simply gives the person a mild stroke at the hopes that it will cause memory damage, taking away the "bad" parts. Shock therapy actually does work for the most part... but mostly for mental illnesses.

Also, you can't say punishments fails. For example, when Russia used to be the USSR and was a communist country, they had stricter rules, and kind of went by my example; you go against the law, you die. And guess what? They had extremely low crime rates. So yes, communist is a good form of governement, at times. It really depends on the status of the country though. v____v ANyways, everysince Russia became Democratic, there crime rates have increased dramatically. Which proves the theory that punishments does work.

But also, the thread asks which do you think society should use more, not which is more effective. Although if you think one method should be used more... than in your opinion it would be more effective. ._.;

Oh come now, you can't make a correlation between Communism and the USSR, who weren't even real communists (Dictator =/= Communism). And Communism is a pure economic theory (it's not governmental, it's economic), just like capitalism (and capitalism has no real needed relation with, say, democracy). Communism is one of the greatest economic philosophies, but much like Capitalism, in its pure form, it's impossible to achieve; Socialism is the best and most attainable.

But anyways, I agree that fear does work. It's not the most efficient, and in the long run it fails (just look at Russia now). And while you can compare Punishment to Russia, you can almost compare Reward to Nazi Germany: the Germans followed Hitler not because they feared him, but because they believed he could make a better world (ie, reward).

Not to mention that with Punishment, chances are that people will do the bare minimum of what's required not to be punished. With rewards, it's possible to get people to do more. Psychologically, if you hear something or do something over and over again, for a long enough period of time, you eventually begin to believe it yourself, so is it possible to create a society that, through positive reinforcement and rewards, actually begin to be good, not because they fear doing wrong, but because they actually want to do good?

 

[Melody]

I think that Punishment and reward be granted on a per case basis...some people need to be punished because they dont care that they did wrong...and then there are those people who just respond negatively to being punished and thusly need to be rewarded for NOT misbehaving...It all depends on the temperment of the person...

Sometimes punishment is handed out unfairly because the judge and/or the jury have already taken a dislike or liking to a criminal...I thikn those who are let off with just a slap on the wrist kind of punishment after he/she has committed so many misdeeds already are the ones who need to really get punished...and I have seen first time offenders get a extremely stiff punishment...it's still unfair because punishment depends on the person(s) who get to decide what that punishment will be...and a lot of times those first ime offenders get the book thrown at them harder than a repeat offender are the ones who suffer most from punishment...They then become Cynical and uncaring and begin to completely disrespect the law because they got too stiffly punished. this in turn breeds more criminals who are hardened against jail and other types of punishment...I think that if punishment is dealt it should be creative...they should resort to more house arrest types of punishment or even take away privleleges like drivers licences...even go as far as requiring them to be placed in a mental hospital for X number of days...

Rewards would come in handy for hardened criminals...give them amnesty for previous crimes and relocate them away from where they are getting in trouble...ban them from places that cause them to misbehave in a mannner that causes them to be thrown in jail...give them a solid foundation so they wont be tempted to misbehave again. If they have money to live honestly they will...most crimes are committed because the criminal needs cash...I'm not saying put them up in a nice condo but give them the means to make money and actually see that honest work isnt so bad....Criminals usually feel out of place so they turn to illegal things to make their stress go away....It's a horrible cycle...
it's important for someone who has led a life of crime to find their place so that they can be happy...
most of the time, if not all laws are broken because the person in question sees the law as a barrier to their happiness...

 

[Dragon Dude]

it depends on what you get as a reward i geuss

 

[RYOUKI]

Punishment, People needs to be punished 'cause they have been doing crimes lately, Why give them reward? Reward does not do anything except well giving them presents, and besides rewards aren't meant to be used to stop criminal and give them stuff as a bribe......it's insanely weird.
So yeah....I'd pick Punishment, Only because I didin't actually understand the question....but I understood its not for PC