When thinking about punishments for crime, at least minor ones, there is often a balance between teaching someone a lesson to make sure they don’t do it again and not being so harsh that it ends up doing more harm than good. New research from the US shows a possible new pathway that might get this balance right, called Creative Punishments.  

Creative punishments were made popular by a particular judge in the US who, for example, sentenced a man who didn’t pay his taxi fare to have to walk the same distance as his taxi ride.  

Creative punishments are alternative forms of discipline that are designed to fit the specific nature of the crime, often by making the offender experience the consequences of their actions in a direct, meaningful way.  

Other examples of creative punishments include:  

• A woman who threw food at a fast-food outlet employee sentenced to work at a fast-food restaurant for 60 days instead of jail. 
• A man caught vandalizing a public statue was sentenced to cleaning graffiti. 
• A young person caught stealing mail was sentenced to go and sort and deliver mail. 

It has also been used in workplaces. For example, a worker who verbally abused and bullied a workmate had to go and work in a customer service department that often involved verbal altercations with the public.  

The key features of creative punishments are:  

• The punishment involves doing something related to the harm caused.  
• It’s specifically matched to the crime.  
• And the goal is to help the person understand why their behaviour was wrong.  

The research showed that the general public think creative punishments:  

• Are more appropriate.  
• Teach offenders better lessons.  
• Are less harsh but still effective at deterring future crimes.  

Interestingly, when asked to imagine what it would be like if you were the person who committed the crime, the majority of people preferred creative punishments when given the choice. 

Some parents will have experimented with these sort of natural consequences in disciplining their children e.g., for breaking a toy belonging to someone else, the child has to buy a new one for the friend out of their own money, or for constantly not cleaning up Lego, having the Lego taken away for a week.  

One of the key things was that creative punishments work best when they match the nature of the crime. Random or unrelated punishments don’t have the same positive effect. Maybe it’s time for our courts to try something new! 

LISTEN ABOVE