from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The punishment is a sanction against a certain behavior , which is usually qualified as injustice or (in the specific situation) inappropriately by the educator , state or superior . The concept of punishment is dealt with in particular in the field of law , but also in theology , philosophy , psychology and, above all, in education .

In learning theory , punishment or punishment is used in two forms, positive and negative, and simply means the opposite of reinforcement . Here positive punishment means that a certain behavior as contingency is followed by an unpleasant stimulus (e.g. social pressure) and negative punishment means that a certain behavior as contingency prevents or is a pleasant stimulus (e.g. food, reward) failed or taken away.


The legal system provides for penalties for violating the most important rules of living together. As a rule, punishment is justified today according to the unification theory with different approaches:

  • with the change of what is to be punished for the better ( special prevention ),
  • with the aim of deterring potential others ( general prevention ),
  • with the aim of protecting others (e.g. the rest of the population),
  • with the restoration of justice (atonement) and retribution ( Talion principle ).

In education and in the corresponding sciences, punishment has been an effective means of education for centuries. Only in the last few decades have alternatives been discussed in educational concepts or in educational sciences and educational institutions, not least influenced by the evaluation of concrete findings from psychology and other sciences.


Criminal law

Punishment is the central concept of criminal law . Punishment in terms of criminal law, according to a prevailing definition of an evil that a person, the " culprit " for her own past, factual excessive , unlawful and culpable act (act or omission ) is imposed by society and by a socio-ethical reproach as a judgment of unworthiness towards this person. The concept of punishment thus differs from that of the measure of reform and protection , for which an offense and illegal act is sufficient. Also no penalties in the legal sense are - unlike the actual “ fines ” (see below) - fines or fines as well as “administrative penalties”, which are therefore now usually referred to as regulatory means.

The concept of punishment as a sanction through which society sends out a moral reprimand towards the perpetrator was developed in the heresy trials of the High Middle Ages and only came into use in the 16th century, at the time of the Spanish Inquisition , through the moral theological discussion of canon law ( Canonism ) into secular criminal law ( Legistics ) (see history below ).

According to the principle nulla poena sine lege (Section 1 of the German Criminal Code ), every punishment must have its basis in a law of the legislature , which raises numerous problems with regard to the specificity of legal norms. Therefore, the criminal offenses are now mostly regulated in a separate penal code, z. B. in the German penal code of 1871. In countries of the common law , the criminal law is z. Sometimes regulated in a much more scattered manner. But also in Germany, so-called secondary criminal law can be found in numerous laws that are not exclusively dedicated to criminal law (e.g. in the Narcotics Act or in the Road Traffic Act). The procedure and enforcement of the sentence are regulated in other laws, for example in Germany by the Code of Criminal Procedure ( StPO ), the Prison Act ( StVollzG ) and the Juvenile Court Act ( JGG ).

What the goal of the punishment is or should be is hotly debated and has not yet been conclusively clarified (see theories of punishment purposes ).

Types of penalty

Criminal law differentiates between main and secondary penalties and secondary consequences.

The main punishments are custodial sentences and fines . There are two different types of penalties . The youth criminal law ( JGG ) still provides for youth punishment. The property fine ( § 43a StGB ) has been declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court (contrary to the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice ). The death penalty has been abolished in accordance with Article 102 of the Basic Law . Corporal punishment is forbidden in Germany; this prohibition follows explicitly from the European Convention on Human Rights .

A secondary punishment is confiscation (if it is not a precautionary measure), notification of the conviction and the ban on driving in accordance with Section 44 of the Criminal Code. In terms of content, the deprivation of rights and abilities (i.e. official capacity and active / passive right to vote according to Section 45 (2) and (5) StGB) is a secondary punishment.

The incapacity for office and the exclusion of the right to vote are also side effects . A secondary consequence of regulatory offenses in road traffic is the driving ban according to Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act . These are not "penalties".

Punishment and sentence

Punishment may only be imposed by a competent court, constitutionally speaking: by the legal judge . Criminal jurisdiction is part of ordinary jurisdiction. The decision follows the appeal of the courts , generally in several stages from the first instance to a competent supreme court . Some of these courts, including international courts , cannot revise the sentence itself, only the judgment of guilt.

The penalties (Germany: sentencing , Austria: sentencing ) is carried out by the Court primarily on the severity of the debt in relation to the Tatergebnis (qualification for that matter) and this law provided penalties and taking into account circumstances of the crime ( aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances ) and with a view to the perpetrator personality. The punishment that is commensurate with guilt in individual cases represents the absolute maximum limit. Failure to comply with the statutory provisions when determining the punishment can be a reason for an appeal . In addition to a judgment , some simplified criminal proceedings (such as penalty orders, penalty mandates) can also impose a penalty. The penalties are determined by the public prosecutor or authorities without a trial. Usually there is a main hearing only after an objection.


The concept of restorative justice (reparation procedure), which represents an alternative form of conflict transformation ( e.g. out - of-court settlement of offenses in Austria), can be mentioned as an alternative to punishment and to current judicial criminal proceedings . Another increasingly practiced measure is the conciliation procedure in advance, an amicable agreement between the parties to the dispute, which can also replace a criminal complaint in the case of less serious offenses, or at least represent a mitigation of the penalty.

"Penalties" in other areas of law

civil right

Sanctions under civil law are often perceived as more serious than criminal sanctions, but these sanctions are not necessarily to be understood as punishments.

Basically, Austrian and German civil law do not have any statutory civil law punitive claims in the sense of the Anglo-American legal institute of punitive damages . For example, Section 1323 of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) stipulates that “everything must be returned to the previous status” in the event of compensation for damages. A similar regulation can be found in the German regulation of Section 249 BGB . This principle is known as in rem restitution . Insofar as claims for pain and suffering are provided ( § 253 BGB, § 1325 ABGB), these are not to be provided as a punishment, but rather to provide the injured person with satisfaction for the injustice suffered and compensation for the pain suffered and not the punishment of the perpetrator. The difference between the law of the German legal system and the Anglo-American legal system is based on the clearer distinction in the German-speaking legal system between civil and public law.

However, penalties can be contractually agreed, corresponding penalties then represent contractual claims. In civil law , the contractual penalty (also called contractual penalty ) is known. However, it must be stipulated in an individual contract (not only in general terms and conditions), otherwise the agreement is ineffective. If the agreed contractual penalty is disproportionately high, a judicial reduction can be requested; However, this does not apply to commercial law ( § 348 HGB ).

So-called club penalties , i.e. sanctions against club members, are also possible within clubs . Under civil law, such penalties are due to the regulatory authority based on the association's statutes. This can also provide for arbitration within the association.

The penalty payment provided for in § 888 ZPO or § 35 FamFG is also not intended as a punishment, but as a means of preventing someone from taking an action.

European law

Even the fines of the European Commission , as administrative fines, are not actually penalties.

international law

Reparations are payments of damages under international law . The repression of states through reparations exceeding the damage is contrary to international law. Exceptionally lawful reactions to injustice under international law are called reprisals .

The attempt to establish international criminal law began after 1945 with the Nuremberg Trials and is currently (2004) being continued in The Hague to prosecute (inter alia) “ genocide ” during the post-Yugoslav civil wars.


The question of the legitimacy of punishment is answered by criminal theories . As a rule, they are based on the purpose of the punishment or on moral ideas.

For a philosophical discussion see also: Cesare Beccaria , Anselm von Feuerbach , Franz von Liszt , Immanuel Kant .


The Behaviorismus understood since Thorndike and Skinner penalize the presentation of an unpleasant stimulus (the so-called. Positive punishment ) or the removal / denial of a pleasant stimulus (the so-called. Negative punishment ). Experiments with rats have shown that the punishment can suppress behavior and create new behavior. The suppression is particularly successful when an alternative behavior is offered. For punishment to effectively reduce undesirable behavior, certain conditions must be met, including:

  • The penalty must be visible to the behavior associated , ie u. a. take place promptly .
  • The punishment must be applied every time the undesirable behavior is shown (not just sporadically).
  • The penalty has to be massive from the start, incremental increases don't work.
  • An alternative, desirable behavior must be possible and reinforced .

Kurt Lewin explains that the threat of punishment maneuvers educator and child into a situation in which both regard each other as enemies. The child also tries to fight the adult outside of criminal situations in order to reduce his power.

The Cognitive Psychology has shown that harsh penalties often do not work, partly because they provoke opposition, on the other hand, because they are considered external only while work justification as the punisher is present. Permanent changes in behavior require internal justifications, see Cognitive Dissonance in Education . Another problem with punishing arises from the fact that punishing alone does not necessarily make the alternative to punished behavior clear or likely; the punished person thus receives no certainty about the possibilities of alternative behaviors, the punishment of which does not occur or becomes less likely.

According to a study by the Kinderschutzbund in the Bielefeld area in 1979 , parents tend to more severe punishments than they themselves believe. More than half of the parents surveyed responded to a control with power-oriented measures such as beating, deprivation of privileges, objects and pocket money, prohibitions, arrest and yelling. They reacted more strongly as soon as they felt disturbed by the behavior of the children themselves. A child e.g. B. who unexpectedly escalates the situation by yelling back is punished more severely than a child who beat up a weaker one.

Lotte Schenk-Danzinger says that younger children preferred different punishments than older ones. Younger people prefer atonement punishments whose connection with the offense is not evident, while older people would rather see the connection with the offense. Furthermore, younger children believed that severe punishments made a child better, while older children preferred teaching. Up to the age of 10, the collective punishment is comradely shared. However, children from 10–12 years of age rejected this form of sanctioning. If the parent does not know the guilty party, no one should be punished. Punishing a non-guilty person is therefore more unjust than not punishing a guilty person.

The temporal distance between behavior (reaction) and the aversive event is also important: the shorter this is, the more effective the aversive stimulus ( contiguity ). So punishments that are given at some point after behavior have little or no effect. The penalty must be timely if it is to have an intended effect.

The authors of Meyer's Kleines Lexikon Psychologie consider the punishment to be dubious for ethical reasons and because of the unsafe consequences for the punished person. In addition, punishment (and wages) are often used without reflection in educational practice. Instead of punishments, wages and recognition should play a bigger role in the educational process.


In simplified terms, “social punishment” aims either at “exclusion from society” or at least at “marginalization” as avoidance of the perpetrator. The ostracism ( ostracism ) in the Forum of ancient Athens is a model for this type of political-democratic exile of an important and powerful member of the community. Therefore, slaves and strangers did not fall under this type of law. In addition, exclusion and avoidance weaken the person's immediate social field.

"From the point of view of exile, today's prison detention in prisons replaces exclusion from society with inclusion in society."


The 1997 Dictionary of Education considers punishment to be an unsuitable means of education. Punishment can suppress certain behavior for a while, but not eliminate it in the long run. Punishment is not suitable as a revenge. Punishment causes aggressive behavior, resentment, distrust, hatred and a tendency to rebellion; she misses her intention . Penalties have the following fundamental flaws:

  • Punishments say nothing about the need to change behavior.
  • Punishments are often given in the affect, which means poor intellectual penetration of the problem.
  • The thematic connection is missing.
  • Too often punishment put the punished person in the context of frustration and aggression.
  • Punishments have unpredictable emotional side effects.

Forms of punishment

In addition to corporal punishment, some authors count as punishments: making a guilty conscience, hurting, laughing at, accusing, ironicizing, belittling, threatening, hateful criticism, triumphantly provoking, reproaching, scolding, making a suffering face, withdrawing.

In Japan, children have traditionally been punished for violating social rules by locking them out of the house for a specified period of time. Since the feeling of togetherness in East Asian families is very strong, the child finds this punishment particularly shameful.

Corporal punishment

Certain punishments are now illegal in some countries (e.g. corporal punishment ).

Modern western concepts

In western pedagogy, punishment has largely been replaced by the concept of “consequence” when it comes to sanctioning undesirable behavior. While there is often no factual connection between the undesired behavior and the sanction in the case of punishment (example: indecent word said - slaps on the fingers), the connection is evident for the child in the case of a consequence (example: skateboard not cleared away after playing - skateboard will be withdrawn for a few days). Consequences are not about guilt and atonement , but about involving the child in clearing up disturbances and making amends .

The American educational book author Barbara Coloroso has pointed out that the effectiveness of consequences largely depends on how reliably the parents enforce them: "It is not the severity of the consequence that has an effect, it is the certainty with which it takes place [...] . ”The psychologist and family therapist Wendy Mogel calls for the child not to be humiliated or embarrassed for being reprimanded ; instead of penalties, Mogel suggests the withdrawal of privileges .

The time-out technique , which comes from behavior therapy and is now widely used in families , does not aim at atonement, but at the removal of stimuli that could intensify the undesirable behavior .

Evaluation of the penalty

In pedagogy (or in the educational sciences) punishment has been considered an appropriate means of bringing up children for centuries. Doubts about this were seldom expressed. It is only recently, above all due to the influence of exact psychology - especially learning psychology (see also above: Psychology), that the assessment of punishment as a means of education has changed. Individual educational concepts also reject punishment as a means of education.

In autocratic (authoritarian) systems, punishment is still central. Where obedience and submission are required in educational processes, punishment is legitimate and justified. The demand for subordination of the pupil goes hand in hand with the legitimation of the punishment.

Even the implementation of the ideas of the educator in larger groups (school classes) is in fact hardly conceivable today without penalties, even if the educator should have democratic educational norms . So the demand for smaller learning groups in today's education system will also be connected with the implication of freer upbringing, which among other things also means: upbringing in which subordination and punishment play an insignificant or no role at all.

The expectation that punishment will degrade punished behavior is not always true. Punishment can have very different effects. It is therefore useful to distinguish the effects of punishing:

Punishment usually does not produce the desired behavior.
  • The effects of the punishment cannot be controlled in detail.
  • Since punishments can in fact only be carried out irregularly, only part of the undesirable behavior is reduced.
  • The success is only short-term, as the educator cannot be present all the time.
  • Punishment changes in the child's consciousness.
  • Frequent punishment becomes a form of reinforcement in the severely neglected child.
  • Parents who are punishing have trouble getting their child to have positive experiences, even if they so wish.
Punishment often leads to undesirable behavior.
  • Not only the punished behavior is changed, but also that which is similar. For example, punished aggression can reduce the child's activity.
  • Being punished reduces the child's flexibility in social situations.
  • Punishment produces evasive behavior.
  • Punishments render the child incapable of responding to positive affection.
Punishment leads to undesirable behavior in the parent.
  • The educator increases himself into punishment, so that he can still hardly do anything else.
  • The more often it is punished, the less it can be rewarded.
  • Punishment worsens the relationship between parent and child, making learning effects difficult or undesirable.

The pedagogue EE Geißler even goes so far that he says that punishments can make the child unwilling or unable to raise. The intrinsic behavior, which is extremely important in education, is made very difficult, if not even impossible, by punishing.

According to learning psychology, the alternative to punishment is to reinforce alternative behaviors. If these behaviors are systematically reinforced, over time a behavior complex arises that may actually be a better alternative to the behavior that is being punished - that is, behavior that the parent can accept. This alternative to punitive upbringing is also a humane way of upbringing that promotes the identity of the child or young person; in the end, it is more promising than any kind of repression and oppression embodied in punishment.

Criticism of the punishment
  • For the neglected child, punishment is even an affection that reinforces the complained about behavior. So the intention of the punishment is reversed.
  • Punishment is especially effective when the person punishing is nearby. If he is not present, the child or young person will not take the punishment seriously.
  • Punishment tends to be misanthropic - combined with a fundamentally inhumane image of man. Excessive punishment also hinders the appropriate development of the child and is counterproductive in terms of developmental psychology / pedagogy.

The latter fact leads to the consideration of whether punishments in education should not be fundamentally rejected. Peter Köck and Hans Ott demand that punishment should be the very last resort, the emergency brake, if all other educational measures have not been successful. Whenever possible, punishment should be avoided or justified. Otherwise it is obvious to interpret punishment as an arbitrary act. In the case of material damage, reparation by the child or young person is more appropriate than punishment. Köck and Ott express the presumption that pedagogy has reached its limits when imposing severe regulatory measures.

AS Neill assesses punishment: "Corporal punishment is evil because it springs from hatred and is cruel. It is an unconscious and sexual perversion. (...) Since religion hates the vicious flesh, corporal punishment is particularly popular in religious areas. () The person who beats out hates himself and projects his hatred onto the child. "

Anton Semjonowitsch Makarenko is not convinced that the punishment has a salutary effect . But where a punishment is indispensable , it must be given. In this case it is a downright duty, writes Makarenko.


Greek antiquity

In ancient Greece there was no system of imprisonment. In some cases, a certain punishment was set for certain offenses (so-called dikai atimetoi ), for the others the jury had to determine the punishment in a second trial. The term of imprisonment was unknown , and forced labor was also unknown , at least in the history of Athens . As far as sources speak of the banishment , it is disputed whether this represented a separate form of punishment. Indeed, it was quite possible to escape the punishment during the trial. Probably the most common form of corporal punishment was the death penalty . Initially, the death penalty was carried out by throwing into an abyss (barathron), although it is not clear whether this was the actual execution of the death penalty or the subsequent disposal of the body of the executed person. In the 4th century BC there were two forms of the death penalty: the well-known hemlock cup as the more pleasant form and the apotympanismos, in which the delinquent was chained to a wooden stake and left to starve and thirst. In addition to the death penalty, there were fines or penalties based on the victim's honor. The Athenians were familiar with standing at podekakke for five days, a pillory for theft or being condemned to dishonor (atimia), especially for violating civic duties.

Roman antiquity

No sources are available for the punishment of ordinary crime during the time of the Roman Republic . The sources, such as Cicero's speeches , do not relate to ordinary crime. Although authors of the outgoing republic speak of a waiver of the death penalty, it is assumed that this only affected the upper class but not the lower class, slaves and foreigners. It was customary for members of the upper class, if they were charged with a capital offense, to give them the option of exile. From the satires of Horace (Hor. Sat. 1, 8, 14 ff.), According to which a large number of executions were carried out on the Esquiline in the early reign of Augustus , it can be concluded that this was also common at the time of the republic was.

Contemporary representation of the execution of the sentence ad bestias in a mosaic .

In the Roman Empire , the proconsuls and propaetors, as provincial governors, were relatively free to determine the degree of punishment, unless imperial instructions were available. What is certain is that the Romans, like the Greeks, did not have any imprisonment in our sense. Often, however, they were sentenced to forced labor . A distinction had to be made between a condemnation of forced labor in mines (metallum) and a condemnation of forced labor on the opus publicum (e.g. work on roads or other construction). Those condemned to work in the mines were legally equal to slaves , were not allowed to inherit, could be chastised like slaves and had to wear chains. For the other people sentenced to forced labor, the conviction did not result in any personal changes in their status. It is noticeable that a distinction was made between punishments for the privileged classes ( honestiores ) and the less privileged classes ( humiliores, persons who did not have Roman citizenship and slaves). The privileged classes were executed by beheading , which, however, was only rarely practiced and in the case of unusually serious offenses (high treason, parricide). Various forms of the increased death penalty were provided for the lower classes. So there was the crematio, according to the Twelve Tables Act, execution by burning for arson . Another punishment that was originally intended for slaves, but was extended to other strata of the population, such as free people without Roman citizenship , was crucifixion during the course of the imperial era . The condemnation to participate in gladiator games ( damnatio ad ferrum ) and to hunt animals in the arenas ( damnatio ad bestias ) was also of great importance . At best, privileged persons had to fear deportation or relegation . The former was usually associated with economic ruin and the loss of citizenship, the latter was limited in time and those affected had no personal legal consequences to fear.

middle Ages

Punishments of the late Middle Ages (Hamburg city law, 1497). Probably from Absolon Stumme

The Middle Ages knew body , honesty and fines . Imprisonment in today's sense did not arise until the 16th century and thus only in the early modern period . The custodial sentences of the Middle Ages include only exile or, in a milder form, expulsion from a territory for a limited time.

The medieval judges were able to act more freely in finding the right punishment than modern and modern judges. According to medieval ideas, punishments were therefore often chosen that also had a symbolic character. The choice of “ reflective ” penalties was typical . With these, the wrong punished should be reflected in the punishment. Theoretically, this was justified by the biblical Talion principle (“an eye for an eye ”), but it also served as a means of popular education and entertainment.

Honor penalties

The " seesaw ", an honor punishment for garden thieves and field thieves ( Soester Nequambuch , 14th century)

In the case of honorary penalties, a distinction must first be made between the penalties pronounced by the jury and those of the lower court . The penalties imposed by the lower judiciary (e.g. wearing the disgraceful mask or the blasphemous stone ) exposed the delinquent to scorn and ridicule, but apart from the costs to be paid by the punished person, there were no other consequences associated with the penalty. The situation was different with the honorary punishment reserved for the higher judiciary, such as the pillory . The pillory was not only associated with humiliation, but also with consequences that went beyond it. The pillory itself not only served as a punishment, but also to make the offender generally known and thus to protect the public. This also served, for example, by leading the punished person around by the neck violin . The consequence of the pillory penalty was often the loss of civil honor and thus the lack of rights. The dishonored could no longer pursue an "honest" profession. These penalties were often combined with eviction from a city, sometimes also with branding and thus further identification of the offender. Those sentenced to honor sentences were often also required to wear symbols of the crime for which they had been convicted. Overall, the choice of the means of honor punishment also had a strong symbolic meaning beyond the punishment. So there was the scuffing, the public hiding of the convicted at the scales or seesaw : the punishment was supposed to wash away the sins immediately .

Death penalty

In the case of the death penalty , hanging , mostly on the gallows, was considered a dishonorable punishment, and beheading , usually with the sword , was a more honorable variant of the more common types of death penalty . Executions by drowning or burning at the stake were symbolic of the cleansing of sins related to the crime . The complete physical annihilation of the offender, for example in witchcraft , also played a role in the cremation . Boiling for counterfeiting was known as a reflective punishment , as counterfeiting was carried out through boiling processes .

Animal processes

The focus of punishment in the Middle Ages was the atonement for the breach of the divine order created by the act. This meant that animals, if they violated criminal provisions, were brought before criminal courts. Individual domestic and farm animals tended to be tried by secular criminal courts, while larger groups of pests were more likely to be dealt with before church jurisdiction and given church punishments (e.g. excommunication , ban ). Lawsuits were common against domestic pigs who were allowed to move freely in the house and yard and who were most likely to cause damage. The practice of animal processes persisted well into the early modern period and partly into the 19th century .

Early modern age

The subjectification of the concept of punishment in the early modern period came from theology . While the confessional jurisprudence of the 13th century still knew criminal sanctions independent of guilt and also spoke of “punishments” for sanctions against animals and things, Thomas Aquinas developed a three-part punitive term: He differentiated between punishment in the real sense (poena in se, poena ratione poenae ), the correction penalty (poena medicinalis) and the reparation penalty (poena satisfactoria). There is thus a tendency to narrow the concept of punishment to the concept of guilty punishment in Aquinas, but the consequences of this were only drawn in the 16th century by the late Spanish scholasticism . The Spanish Franciscan Alfonso de Castro (1495–1558) developed the term “real punishment” (poena vere), which he contrasted with other evils (afflictiones) . At the same time, Castro equipped the punishment with a moral charge, claiming that the perpetrator felt guilty for his act. This teaching was imparted to secular criminal law by the canons Martin de Azpilcueta and Diego de Covarrubias y Leyva . Since other names had to be found for the other “evils”, “criminal law” was increasingly freed from elements of “civil law” or “police law”.

See also


Literature on the history of punishing

  • Viktor Achter: Birth of the penalty. Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1951, DNB 450018687 .
  • Josette Baer, Wolfgang Rother (ed.): Crime and punishment . Colmena, Basel 2017, ISBN 978-3-906896-02-1 .
  • Richard van Dülmen: Theater of Terror. Judicial Practice and Punishment Rituals in the Early Modern Era. 4th edition. Beck, Munich 1995, ISBN 3-406-40024-8 .
  • Michel Foucault : Monitoring and Punishing . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1977, ISBN 3-518-07784-8 .
  • Ch. Hinkeldey (Ed.): Justice in old times. (Series of publications by the medieval crime museum Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Volume VI). Rothenburg o. D. T. 1984, DNB 891127313 .
  • Heike Jung: What is punishment? Nomos, Baden-Baden 2002, ISBN 3-7890-7568-X .
  • Friedrich Kluge: Etymological dictionary of the German language. Walter de Gruyter Verlag, Berlin 1963.
  • Friedrich Koch : The wild child. The story of a failed dressage. Hamburg 1997, ISBN 3-434-50410-9 , p. 133 ff.
  • Harald Maihold: Punishment for someone else's guilt? The systematization of the concept of punishment in the Spanish late scholasticism and natural law theory. Böhlau, Cologne 2005, ISBN 3-412-14905-5 .
  • Hinrich Rüping : Outline of the history of criminal law. 6th edition. CH BECK, 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-62689-0 .
  • Eberhard Schmidt: Introduction to the history of the German criminal justice system. 3. Edition. Goettingen 1965.
  • Nelly Tsouyopoulos : Punishment in early Greek thinking (Diss. Munich 1962). Freiburg / Munich 1966.

Literature on psychological and educational issues

Literature on Philosophical Aspects of Punishment

Individual evidence

  1. Heribert Ostendorf , From the sense and purpose of punishing. ( Memento of the original from July 23, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Federal Agency for Political Education . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bpb.de
  2. For Germany cf. Palandt / Heinrichs § 253 RdNr. 11 with further evidence.
  3. For Austria cf. Heinz Barta (Ed.): Online textbook civil law. II.8.
  4. On the differences between German and American law, cf. for example Klaus Weber: Claims for pain and suffering in Germany and in the United States of America. In: German American Law Journal. April 13, 2006.
  5. ^ Paul D. Carrington: Punitive Damages - The American Tradition Of Private Law. ( Memento of the original from September 30, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: Humboldt Forum Law. HFR 2004, article 7, p. 1. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.humboldt-forum-recht.de
  6. ^ Arnold, Eysenck, Meili: Lexikon der Psychologie, Volume 3, Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 1973, pp. 476 f., ISBN 3-451-16113-3 .
  7. ^ DM Church, in: Arnold, Eysenck, Meili, Freiburg 1972; P. 456, vol. 3, see above.
  8. ^ NH Azrin, WC Holz: Punishment. In: Operant Behavior. WK Honig (Ed.), Prentice-Hall, 1966.
  9. The psychological situation with wages and punishment. Leipzig 1931, pp. 26-38.
  10. Kinderschutz aktuell 1/1979, pp. 16-17.
  11. Developmental Psychology. Österreichischer Bundesverlag for Education, Science and Art, Vienna 1972, p. 202 f .; ISBN 3-215-31815-6 .
  12. ^ DM Church, in: Arnold, Eysenck, Meili, Freiburg 1972; P. 458, vol. 3, see above.
  13. ^ Bibliographical Institute Mannheim / Vienna / Zurich, Meyers Lexikonverlag, 1986.
  14. Manfred Rehbinder: The denial of social cooperation as a legal problem. To the legal institutions of Eastern Reach and Boycott. In: Magaret Gruter / Manfred Rehbinder (eds.), Rejection - Avoidance - Exclusion. Multidisciplinary study on the downside of communitarisation, 1986, 237 ff .; Reinhold Zippelius: Exclusion and avoidance as legal and social sanctions. In: Magaret Gruter / Manfred Rehbinder (eds.), Rejection - Avoidance - Exclusion. Multidisciplinary study on the downside of communitarisation, 1986, p. 12 ff .; Axel Montenbruck civil religion. A legal philosophy II. Basic elements: Reconciliation and mediation, punishment and confession, justice and humanity from a legal perspective, 3rd considerably expanded edition, University Library of the Free University of Berlin, 2011, p. 166 ff., (Open access).
  15. Jonathan Haidt: The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology . In: Science . tape 316 , no. 5827 , May 18, 2007, p. 998-1002 , doi : 10.1126 / science.1137651 . ( read online ); Note: Shunning is an inexpensive punishment. Quote: "Evolutionary models show that indirect reciprocity can solve the problem of free-riders (which doomed simpler models of altruism) in moderately large groups, as long as people have access to information about reputations (eg, gossip) and can then engage in low-cost punishment such as shunning. "Suggested
    translation: Evolutionary models show that indirect reciprocity in moderately large groups can solve the free-rider problem (who condemned the simpler models of altruism) as long as people have access to information about reputation (e.g. B. gossip) and then be able to advocate inexpensive punishment such as avoidance.
  16. Axel Montenbruck civil religion. A legal philosophy II. Basic elements: Reconciliation and mediation, punishment and confession, justice and humanity from a legal perspective, 3rd considerably expanded edition, University Library of the Free University of Berlin, 2011, p. 167, (open access).
  17. ^ Peter Köck, Hanns Ott: Dictionary of Education, Auer Verlag, Donauwörth 1997, p. 692; ISBN 3-403-02455-5 .
  18. Lutz Schwäbisch, M. Siems: Instructions for social learning, rororo, Reinbek 1977.
  19. Irene Chung, Tazuko Shibusawa: Contemporary Clinical Practice with Asian Immigrants: A relational framework with culturally responsive approaches . Routledge, New York 2013, ISBN 978-0-415-78342-2 , pp. 97 f . ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  20. Jan-Uwe Rogge: Arguing can be learned: Partnership-based conflict solutions in everyday family life. In: Christian Büttner, Bernhard Meyer (Hrsg.): Learning program democracy: possibilities and limits of political education of children and young people. Juventa, Weinheim / Munich 2000, ISBN 3-7799-1416-6 , p. 52 f., P. 47-62.
  21. ^ Norbert Kühne , Regina Mahlmann , Pater Wenzel: Pedagogical Practice - Solving Conflicts, Bildungsverlag EINS, Troisdorf 2002
  22. Barbara Coloroso: Kids are worth it! Giving your child the gift of inner discipline. Harper Collins, New York 2002, ISBN 0-06-001431-8 , p. 215.
  23. As a Jew, Mogel refers to the prohibition of humiliation in the 3rd book of Moses : "You shouldn't hate your brother in your heart, but you should rebuke your neighbor so that you don't have to bear his fault." 3rd book of Moses, 19.17; Wendy Mogel: The Blessings of a Skinned Knee : Using Jewish Teachings to Raise Self-Reliant Children. Scribner, New York / London / Toronto / Sydney / Singapore 2001, ISBN 0-684-86297-2 , pp. 200 f. and p. 205 f. ( limited online version in Google Book Search - USA )
  24. For example: AS Neill: Theory and practice of anti-authoritarian education - the example of Summerhill, rororo 6707–6708, Reinbek 1969, ISBN 3-499-16707-7 .
  25. ^ Norbert Kühne : Psychology for technical schools and technical colleges. 8th edition. Bildungsverlag EINS , Troisdorf 2006, pp. 52–53.
  26. ^ Norbert Kühne et al.: Psychology for technical schools and technical colleges. Bildungsverlag EINS, Troisdorf 2006, 8th edition, ISBN 3-427-04150-6 ; Page 51–53.
  27. ^ HJ Kornadt, M. Wirsing: Education methods and early childhood behavior, in: Otto M. Ewert: Developmental Psychology I. Kiepenheuer & Witsch Verlag, Cologne 1972, pp. 87 f., ISBN 3-462-00865-X .
  28. ^ Norbert Kühne et al.: Psychology for technical schools and technical colleges. Bildungsverlag EINS, Troisdorf 2006, 8th edition, ISBN 3-427-04150-6 ; Page 51–53.
  29. ↑ means of education. Bad Heilbrunn 1982, p. 162 f.
  30. ^ Meyer's Small Lexicon of Psychology. Meyers Lexikon Verlag Mannheim / Vienna / Zurich 1986; Page 210 f., ISBN 3-411-02652-9 .
  31. ^ Dictionary for education and teaching. Auer Verlag, Donauwörth 1997, 6th edition, p. 693, ISBN 3-403-02455-5 .
  32. ^ Theory and practice of anti-authoritarian education - the example of Summerhill, rororo 6707/6708, Reinbek 1970, p. 323
  33. A.-S. Makarenko: Selected pedagogical writings, Paderborn 1961, pp. 115–117.
  34. Jens-Uwe Krause: Criminal history of antiquity. CH Beck Verlag, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-406-52240-8 , p. 22 ff.
  35. Jens-Uwe Krause: Criminal history of antiquity. CH Beck Verlag, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-406-52240-8 , p. 20 ff.
  36. ^ Max Kaser : Roman legal history. § 29 Criminal jurisdiction and criminal law 2nd, revised edition. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1976, ISBN 3-525-18102-7 , p. 124.
  37. Jens-Uwe Krause: Criminal history of antiquity. CH Beck Verlag, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-406-52240-8 , p. 73.
  38. Jens-Uwe Krause: Criminal history of antiquity. CH Beck Verlag, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-406-52240-8 , p. 73 ff.
  39. Wolfgang Schild: The history of jurisdiction - From the judgment of God to the beginning of modern justice. Nikol-Verlagsgesellschaft, Hamburg 2002, ISBN 3-930656-74-4 , pp. 208, 210.
  40. Wolfgang Schild: The history of jurisdiction - From the judgment of God to the beginning of modern justice. Nikol-Verlagsgesellschaft, Hamburg 2002, ISBN 3-930656-74-4 , pp. 208, 210, 197.
  41. Konrad Motz: The punishments of the pillory and the basket as well as corresponding legal regulations. In: Dieter Pötsche: Stadtrecht, Roland, and pillory. Lukas Verlag, Wernigerode / Berlin 2002, ISBN 3-931836-77-0 , p. 309 ff.
  42. Wolfgang Schild: The history of jurisdiction - From the judgment of God to the beginning of modern justice. Nikol-Verlagsgesellschaft, Hamburg 2002, ISBN 3-930656-74-4 , pp. 197-206.
  43. ^ Marie Sagenschneider: Processes - 50 Classics. 2nd Edition. Gerstenberg-Verlag, Hildesheim 2005, ISBN 3-8067-2531-4 , pp. 36-39, chap. "Hang the Pig" - Trials against animals (9th to 19th centuries) .

Web links

Commons : Punishment  - collection of pictures, videos and audio files
Wikisource: Punishment  - Sources and full texts
Wiktionary: Punishment  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations