The didn't do their homework and decided to play with their toys instead. Does that help?
But I guess what does it matter if it is the same thing? I find that very curious. Isn't the quantity of toys arbitrary anyway? Can you some how put a price in toys on misbehavior?
Another progressive fine question.
I'm hate to have to do so, but I guess I will. I'm going to burst your bubble.
Kids =/= Adults.
One) the difference between the punishment relative to the person and the punishment relative to the behavior. The latter is completely arbitrary. There is no rhyme or reason to one toy vs. two. But people make an "is what it is" argument not realizing it's just an appeal to authority. The former is what I want people to acknowledge - punishment as a measure of how it affects the target. I do not want them to feel bad for the kid. I want them to recognize that because he had less to loose he was more affected by the punishment. It is likely that the kid that lost all toys got the biggest "lesson" out of the punishment and is less likely to repeat the behavior. So the question is, if you want equal results and equal affects (ie no toys), how can you possibly rely on an arbitrary punishment? It is simple math.
IF this is genuinly not about progressive fines, and legitimately about how to punish CHILDREN, then A, the punishment should match the crime (I swear by time outs...my kids hate that more than anything else, even spanking), and B, the punishment should not vary from child to child if the crimes are of equal severity.
In other words, no matter the number of toys, if taking away ALL toys is the punishment, that must be evenly applied. I can't imagine why would want to take away only ONE toy, unless the toy itself is the focus of the misbehavior. Taking away ONE toy, or half of their toys, is a waste of time, IMO.