PUNISHMENT
1563
PUNJAB
to seclude the offender from society at large. It is fairly-well demonstrated that the deterring force of exemplary punishment has been vastly overrated, indeed the criminal is often thus brought before the people to be regarded as a hero to be imitated. His sufferings are forgotten or idealized, his courage and cleverness only are remembered. Popular feelings are brutalized or rendered morbid by sensational crimes and spectacular punishments. We know now that it is far better to accustom men to think only of right conduct than to try to frighten them out of evil.
Finally, it has come to be recognized that the highest humanity demands not merely such consideration for the criminal as is consistent with the protection of society, but that this should include an attempt to reform him. Criminals of different degrees of degeneracy are separated. They are acfcustomed to labor and are taught trades, since lack of industry or of skill to get a living is a common source of crime. Reformation is -encouraged by credits for good conduct, {by which the term of imprisonment may be shortened, or by release on probation, both of which lead to the indeterminate sentence. In summary, we may say that punishment for retaliation, though it still appears in the conduct of individuals and mobs, has ceased to be a form of public justice. Punishment for example remains, but its value is not estimated as very high. The effort of criminologists is concentrated on measures likely to insure the protection of society and especially the reform of the criminal.
In the discipline of children the same principles and the same progress are exemplified. Many parents and teachers allow themselves to punish for revenge. Although this is instinctive,, nothing can be more indefensible from the point of view of justice. To prevent it one should be careful about punishing while angry, the effect of the example on others should ordinarily not be the purpose of the punishment but, rather, incidental thereto. It must be said, however, that since children can not be secluded from society like criminals, the effect of example must certainty be reckoned with. This is^ especially true in the school. On the other hand, it certainly is better for the order of the schools and the conduct of the child to keep his attention away from wrong-doing, when possible, and, therefore from its punishment. Further, since society is in no great danger from the young, punishment lor protection does not apply very considerably to them. Reform should be the fundamental motive in " this discipline. While this fact has been recognized more or less clearly from time immemorial^ the punishment of the child has been insensibly affected by the general method of dealing
' with offenders. Its severity was intensified by the religious doctrine of original sin and the total depravity of children. The idea that "to spare the rod is to spoil the child'* was current for ages during which the schoolmaster was typically represented with a bundle of switches. Cor^. poral punishment was the method of inducing the stupid and the idle to learn and of correcting the mischievous and the rebellious. The work of the school'was so uninteresting that none save the extraordinary teacher could get the child to go throughv with it without compulsion, and the rod'was the simplest resort. The development of general interest in childhood and in education (see CHILD-STUDY) and the reforms by which the. curriculum has been enriched and school-work made more interesting (see INTEREST) have caused the discipline of the child to become more humane and rational. Comenius (1592-1670) taught that punishment should be for offenses against law and order and not as an incentive to study. To Rousseau (1712-1778) we owe the theory that every penalty should be the natural consequence of the offenc*e. If a child neglects the suggestion of the parent not to put its fingers in the fire, let it be burned. In general, according to Rousseau, the disobedient child is allowed to do as he wishes until, having come to grief many times, he learns to respect the advice or commands of his elders. Annoying children are let alone, the natural social effect of their acts. This theory has been further elaborated by Herbert Spencer. It, perhaps, furnishes the best general rule to determine the character of punishment, for the penalties are such that the child as soon as it begins to reason will see their logical necessity. It fails where the natural consequences are too serious to leave the child to learn from them, or where its conduct is so annoying to others that arbitrary punishment becomes necessary. The theory of natural conseqtiences gives no place to corporal punishment, unless it is for physical in-}uries wantonly inflicted. In general it may be said that education should teach children, to despise rather than fear physical pain; hence the limitation of corporal punishment. On the other hand, those who would entirely bar out this form of discipline, especially with very young or very unresponsive children, are probably extreme. To both classes it appeals as the natural - penalty. See, also, MODERN EDUCATION and "PRISONS. Consult Henderson's Dependents, Defectives and Delinquents. Punjab (pun-jdb') or Pan jab, a province of India, occupying its northwestern corner, is watered by the Indus (q. v.) and its five great affluents — the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. The area under direct British administration (it was annexed by
