By 
The three theories of punishment – retributive, reforming, and deterrent – attempt to classify the expected result through punishment. It is also a kind of justification for the imposition of a punishment.
Educational implications: retribution and reform
* Responsibly given and received retributive punishment is likely to be a kind of catharsis.
* However, there is the possibility that in the case of a bully (a misfit child) the effectiveness of retributive punishment may be lost. The stalker may misinterpret the moral mentor’s resentment as a mere personal attack from a bigger man. This would then block the way for real reform.
* Sometimes retributive punishment that purports to be an expression of moral outrage may convey nothing to the guilty person if he firmly believes that he was always right. Here, retributive punishment given by a teacher without careful consideration of the “fact” could produce negative results.
* There is also a kind of illogic in retributive punishment. One can throw acid in another’s face and can be punished. But is it possible to provide a proportion between the suffering of the punishment and the harm done? Also, can the facial disfigurement of the injured part be mitigated in some way by punishment? This implies that the selection of the appropriate punishment as retribution becomes very difficult for the teacher.
* The ultimate purpose of retribution is to make the child understand that punishment is given to reform and repent. Here one may be tempted to ask, “Why not try another way out other than inflicting pain? Wouldn’t it be better if the teacher advised the child and gave him an additional learning task that has utility value?”
Educational involvement: deterrent punishment
* Deterrent punishment seems simple and utilitarian and could be used by the teacher to ensure punctuality, order, etc.
* The teacher may justify the use of deterrent punishment if its ultimate goal is to eliminate the nuisance and develop in the child a sense of personal responsibility.
* However, the teacher has to be discreet in the use of deterrent punishments on people prone to questioning authority. If the teacher persists in conditioning fear, these individuals can turn cynics into experts in avoiding detection. They can even make a false show of virtue and become undisciplined the moment control is removed.
* Deterrent punishment even emphasizes that if a child is caught telling a lie, he should be punished so that other children will not tell lies in the future. Here one could very well
Ask: “Is it correct to punish a child so that the morale of others is improved?”
So far I have focused on retributive / reformist punishment and deterrent punishment by emphasizing the irrationality involved in punishing the child. By the way, behaviorists believe that “… teachers should not use punishment because students will soon learn to avoid sources of punishment and may generate angry and fearful reactions towards people, places, or things associated with punishment.”
[Harold E. Mitzel (ed) Encyclopaedia of Educational Research (1941) Macmillan Publishing Company, New York: 1982 Vol 2 P 904]
But if the teacher still persists in making use of any of the three types of punishment, it can be helpful if he follows a simple formula PUNISHMENT
Q- Personal history … Is the offender prone to mischief?
U- Utility value of the punishment … Will it reform the offender?
N-Is it really necessary …? (Could be circumstances that made the child compromise
the offense)
I – The teacher must be impartial
S- Select the type of punishment from a wide range.
H- Be human when managing. The ultimate good of the offending individual must
stay in sight.