Abstract
The concepts of discipline and law are linked together. Laws are often constructed to define what is considered acceptable conduct, and a form of discipline is often used to align unacceptable conduct to those laws. This is especially evident in the K-12 setting. Schools promote their brand of laws or “policies” to allow for an efficient education process with minimal disruption. However, when you are dealing with children who are not in full control of their impulses, disruptions are bound to occur. In the U.S., given the disproportionate sentencing and incarceration rates between whites and minorities, it can be reasonably deduced that the same phenomenon occurs within the K-12 school space as well. In consideration of these discrepancies, and U.S. constitutional concepts such as due process and equal protection are referenced. What exactly are they, and how do they come into play to correct these inequities? How do landmark cases argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court citing these concepts help to frame what is considered acceptable discipline in the K-12 school space?
TopTheories Of Punishment
There are multiple purposes used to justify the use of punishment (Young,1983). The main functions of punishment are cited below. They include:
- 1.
Education. The teaching of the general public what is acceptable (or unacceptable) behavior by openly punishing an offender for their wrongdoings.
- 2.
General Deterrence. The effect of a particular punishment on the public to deter others from committing the same or similar offense.
- 3.
Specific Deterrence. The effect of a particular punishment on the individual offender to deter future similar (or the same) offenses.
- 4.
Rehabilitation. The reformation of an offender’s behavior through personal development to prevent the offender from committing future offensive acts.
- 5.
Retribution. The punishment of a wrongdoer for committing the offense, i.e., “an eye for an eye.”
There are also two prevailing theories regarding punishment in the U.S. The first is the retributive theory, and the other is the utilitarian theory (Young, 1983). Although these theories of punishment are mainly from the viewpoint of criminality, they form the basis for punishment in schools across the United States.
Retributive Theory
The retributive theory’s main concern is that individuals are punished for their illegal acts. It is often considered backward-looking, it fails to consider the future ramifications of the punishment, and it only respects the past transgressions of the individual offender (Young, 1983). Retributive theory gives very little (if any) consideration to the reduction of similar offenses committed in the future, nor does it consider whether the public has been educated through the punishment levied on the offender. Retributive theory’s main preoccupation is with the offense committed and the sentence. The penalty should be in proportion to the offense. Retribution theory is often referred to as the “eye for an eye” approach. Some Zero Tolerance punishments (to be discussed later in the chapter) that are levied are rooted in retribution, e.g., a student eating a pastry into the shape of a gun and being suspended for it.
Utilitarian Theory
The utilitarian theory focuses on the benefits of punishment to society as a whole. This form of punishment is broadly regarded as serving the “greatest good to society” (Young, 1983). It is often considered forward-looking, and it attempts to protect the community by deterring future wrongdoings. The purposes of deterrence (general and specific), education, and rehabilitation are all considerations utilized under this theory. For instance, if suspending a student for their wrongful act to deter future wrongful acts is for the “greater good,” it would be considered utilitarian. Also, using students caught vandalizing the school to clean debris from school hallways to educate others not to commit similar crimes would be utilitarian. Finally, administering after-school detention to rehabilitate truant students would be utilitarian.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Government Agent: A person granted the authority to act on behalf of a government entity.
Ad Valorem Taxes: “Ad Valorem” Latin for “according to value.” Usually is used in reference to property taxes (either personal or real property).
Qualified Immunity: Absolution for government workers or agents of personal liability for tortious acts when committed in connection with their job.
Arbitrary and Capricious: A judgment or action not based on law or a previous precedent.
Free and Appropriate Public Education: An entitlement for students with disabilities guaranteeing they receive a free and appropriate public education reflective of their special individual needs.
Ministerial Acts: Acts carried out in connection with a particular function.
Inalienable Right: A right that is inherent and cannot be given away.
Retribution: To punish someone for an act based on revenge.
Utility: The use gained through a thing or an act.