• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Fair" punishment

What is the best example of fair punishment for a week?


  • Total voters
    25
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you not see the poll question?

The poll question deals with sentencing for an infraction, I picked option #2 because it is the least severe. If a fine, penalty or sentence is to be equal or "fair" then it may not vary based on anything except the nature of the offense, and possibly one's prior record of offenses. The concept of taking a percentage of one's assets is not fair because that implies that jaywalking is not equally serious based on one's wealth. The example should have included a child with 100 toys and a child with no toys - which makes it impossible to punish the child with no toys and far less likely to see option #1 as fair.
 
It's not that at all. If you prefer, you can answer as which punishment is most effective.

No? The way you're asking the question tells me you're hiding something and I want to know what it is.
 
Since Tommy has 4 toys and Timmy only has 2 then the only fair thing would be to have Tommy give Timmy one of his toys so that both have 3. In that way Tommy will feel the sting of the righteous hand of justice and Timmy will be less inclined to misbehave because he is now on the same socioeconomic level as Tommy.

While it would appear at first glance that taking all toys away from both boys would achieve the same result this would be false. To exercise that option would be to ignore the social benefits of "restorative justice".

Seriously, why are you so afraid to answer a question about two children and some toys? Giving timmy another toy was not a given option. Please choose from the choices given.
 
Seriously, why are you so afraid to answer a question about two children and some toys? Giving timmy another toy was not a given option. Please choose from the choices given.

Because more than likely whatever it is you're hiding will be sprung on whoever tries to answer your question.
 
It's not that at all. If you prefer, you can answer as which punishment is most effective.

There is no definitive answer. Different kids react in their own way. I have three kids, and I had to handle each differently as each responded differently.
 
I'm hiding something by asking your opinion?

There is a clear intent behind the question that you have yet to share.
 
The poll question deals with sentencing for an infraction, I picked option #2 because it is the least severe. If a fine, penalty or sentence is to be equal or "fair" then it may not vary based on anything except the nature of the offense, and possibly one's prior record of offenses. The concept of taking a percentage of one's assets is not fair because that implies that jaywalking is not equally serious based on one's wealth. The example should have included a child with 100 toys and a child with no toys - which makes it impossible to punish the child with no toys and far less likely to see option #1 as fair.

Thank you for answering. It's ironic - I avoided the '100 toy' specifically to avoid the "class warfare" implication.

Let me ask two questions:

Do any of the answers make for a more effective (now forgetting 'fair') punishment? In otherwords, is one kid more likely to have "learned his lesson"?

What would you have chosen if #2 wasn't available? I look at X toys as completely arbitrary, but your response is not unlike other responses that I got. You somehow arrive at X as a cost of the crime (please feel free to correct me, it is not my intent to misrepresent).
 
Since Tommy has 4 toys and Timmy only has 2 then the only fair thing would be to have Tommy give Timmy one of his toys so that both have 3. In that way Tommy will feel the sting of the righteous hand of justice and Timmy will be less inclined to misbehave because he is now on the same socioeconomic level as Tommy.

While it would appear at first glance that taking all toys away from both boys would achieve the same result this would be false. To exercise that option would be to ignore the social benefits of "restorative justice".

Hmm... Timmy and Tommy initially have 3 toys each. Timmy sells Tommy one of his toys and then snitches on him. The result of your justice is that Timmy uses that justice system to steal from Tommy. ;)
 
There is no definitive answer. Different kids react in their own way. I have three kids, and I had to handle each differently as each responded differently.

It shouldn't be that hard to go a little bit abstract and consider both kids as the same. If that is not possible for you, assume 1000 tommy's and 1000 timmy's then and take the aggregate result.
 
Wow... people have a hard time dealing with hypotheticals... its pretty common sense on what the thread means, but maybe not everyone has common sense...Now whether you can compare this demonstration to other things, is a question in and of itself...

The first option, In this case, if you are trying to discipline children, the goal is to make them feel punished... the kid with more toys will still have toys to play with if any of the other options are used... the impact on the children would not be equal, the one with fewer toys is left with nothing... same with the progressive option, no matter what the kid with less toys gets more impacted because the value of the individual toys goes down the more you have.
for example...
VP=value points
1 toy= 30 VP

now when you already have one toy the VP of the toy you have decreases to
1 extra toy= 15 VP

now when you already have two toys the VP of the toy you have decreases to
1 extra toy= 7 VP

now when you already have three toys the VP of the toy you have decreases to
1 extra toy= 3 VP

so
Kid with...
1 toy=30 VP
2 toys=45 VP
3 toys=52 VP
4 toys=55 VP

so if you introduce a progressive system Kid with 2 toys decrease to one, kid with 4 toys decreases to 2
kid with 2 toys lost 15 VPs
kid with 4 toys lost 10 VPs
*Depending on the value deprecation of toys when amount of toys increase, this relationship changes, AND the value per toy would be different for each child just based on their attitude...so this is an all around imprecise/unfair method*

This example also shows that kid with 4 toys actually loses more value when all toys get taken away.

With this VP example it is impossible to be 100% fair in this instance...a progressive punishment isn't equal because the oject itself get depreciated as well... so it's double scaled.

Since no option is fair.... taking them all away gives the full affect of them punishment equally !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!UNLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you are taking away the toys permanently...in that case boy with 4 toys is getting punished far worse because he is permanently losing more VP... THEN a progressive punishment system would be more fair.
 
There is a clear intent behind the question that you have yet to share.

You can continue to be skeptical of my genuine interest in people's analysis of these question. Will I later attempt to draw parallels later? Perhaps. But even that will be grammar experiment. Was I surprised by that other thread? Yes. But it wasn't the answers, it was the indirection. I see three components to this discussion and I'm merely trying to isolate one without somebody talking about another. Seriously, don't answer. It won't be the end of my world, but all that will do is skew my results. I would prefer to have your answer. I've said this before - people assume that I'm trying to change their mind. What I'm really trying to do is understand their mind and have sympathy for their position.

What are you afraid of? We're not in the same room. I have no ability to embarrass you in front of your friends. You have an opportunity to explain your logic. Take it.
 
Thank you for answering. It's ironic - I avoided the '100 toy' specifically to avoid the "class warfare" implication.

Let me ask two questions:

Do any of the answers make for a more effective (now forgetting 'fair') punishment? In otherwords, is one kid more likely to have "learned his lesson"?

What would you have chosen if #2 wasn't available? I look at X toys as completely arbitrary, but your response is not unlike other responses that I got. You somehow arrive at X as a cost of the crime (please feel free to correct me, it is not my intent to misrepresent).

The penalty for an infraction should be relative to the severity of the infraction, not the wealth of the perp. I fail to see how the # of toys sentence can be any deterrent once all toys have been taken. This leads to injustice as the "toyless" must then either forfeit their freedom or pay no penalty at all for their infraction. Perhaps a better sentence would be a forfeiture of freedom (X hours/days of timeout) which makes one's wealth (# of toys) not a factor.
 
I'm going on record now as saying that's exactly what it is about.

You can post a link if you'd like. But that seems irrelevant. Do you find conflict here that doesn't hold up elsewhere? If not what is the point of these nonsense disclaimers?
 
The correct question would have been do I spank my children relative to the surface area of their butt.

That was where my spankings occurred. So?

I never got my toys taken away.
 
Yes, everyone can see the poll question, but no one knows why their toys are relevant to the question or what the boys actually did.

That is my point. One's wealth (# of toys) should have no bearing on a sanction for an infraction.
 
I'm pretty sure the question revolves around the wealthy paying the same amount for violations such as speeding.

hmm.I had taken it as reinforcement ,punishment ,behaviorism etc. from educational perspective :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
The correct question would have been do I spank my children relative to the surface area of their butt.

No, the correct question would have been do the number of spanks vary based on the severity of the infraction or the wealth (# of toys) of the perp.
 
Hmm... Timmy and Tommy initially have 3 toys each. Timmy sells Tommy one of his toys and then snitches on him. The result of your justice is that Timmy uses that justice system to steal from Tommy. ;)

Man, you and I together would have ruled the playground!!:lol:
 
The penalty for an infraction should be relative to the severity of the infraction
But what does this mean? Do you see why this is a tough question? Who decides that one toy and not two is the 'proper' penalty? There's nothing propery about it - it's arbitrary. What is the "severity of the infraction"? Severe relative to who/what? I'm not playing games, these are real questions that seem to have appeal-to-authority type answers.


Perhaps a better sentence would be a forfeiture of freedom (X hours/days of timeout) which makes one's wealth (# of toys) not a factor.

I agree. But the question to you is does time make for a better sentence? What is different about time compared to toys in this case? To me it's because time is equal - while each kid may or may not have toys to play with after a punishment, both sacrifice the same amount of time out of their day.
 
Back
Top Bottom