Excuse and Reason — the problem of discipline

Philip G. Ney, MD, MA, FRCPC, FRANZCP, RPSYCH

November 2001

As society becomes increasingly aware of the fact that most people are behaving in anti-social ways because of what was done to them, it seems to become more permissive. This permissiveness is not necessarily due to the lowering of standards but an acknowledgment of the fact that an individual cannot be held solely responsible for his criminal conduct. When an adolescent steals, does one blame him or his parents who bullied and deprived him, or the school, which humiliated and frustrated him, or society, which deprived him of real challenges? If one blames his parents then his grandparents should also be blamed for they were also mean and affectionless. It is often quite clear that human tendencies may go on for many generations. If a judge was being completely fair in making a judgment, many people must be held responsible, and the sentence apportioned to each person’s contribution to any tragedy or crime.

Yet a person must be held as if he were responsible. The reason society must do this is to foster a maximum sense of responsibility in an individual. Even though the individual is well aware of the fact that he alone is not the only contributor he must conduct himself as if he were truly in charge of his own behaviour. Everyone has good reasons for behaving the foolish ways they do but this doesn’t excuse them. Certainly it does diminish the responsibility in an objective way, but subjectively we must assume the burden of responsibility.

At the same time, society and the courts must judge all those who are contributing to tragedy so that everyone will exert their individual responsibility. The onlookers at a riot must be held culpable. The bystanders at a mugging are contributing to the crime.

Being held responsible doesn’t mean that retribution must be made. Too often society has tried to get even, as if that were possible. Judgement must be made in terms of restitution and/or compensation because relationships are the most import factor. It is not so important to spank a child, as it is to make sure that he apologizes, repairing the relationship. He must rectify any damage. By doing an extra favour or repaying more than was taken, he is punished in the scientific sense.

The psychiatrist is often consulted in an attempt to help determine proper judgement. The psychiatrist’s duty is to determine the reasons for behaviour.

The reason for a thief’s behaviour is not something that should excuse him/her. Once the reason is determined the responsibility of the court is to temper its judgement. The court must also judge all those who have contributed to a particular delinquency. The responsibility of society is then to tackle all those factors which diminish individual responsibility in society, e.g. To deal with violence on t.v. That is provoking aggression. For the individual, once the reason is determined he can assume more responsibility because the insight has made him more aware of why he behaves as he does.

The problem has always been that we seldom punish all those who are responsible. Too frequently the child is punished as a scapegoat. He is made to bear all the punishment when it is obvious that his parents, teachers and other members of society are as much or more responsible for his particular behaviour. Should we not also judge unobservant teachers, provocative peers, irritating parents and the titillating media? It is time we expected restitution from everyone who is contributing to crime and stop scapegoating children who are "caught in the act."