By GHANI-UR-REHMAN, ANWAR GHANI, MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR , SYED HUSNAIN A. NAQVI1, DHANANJAY SINGH

Internet of Vehicles (IoV) is a new emerging concept and is an extended notion of Vehicular Ad-hoc networks (VANETs). In IoV the vehicles (nodes) are connected to the internet and able to transmit information. However, due to resources constraint nature of vehicles, they may not want to cooperate in order to save its own resources such as memory, energy, and buffer, etc. This behavior may lead to poor system performance. IoV needs an efficient solution to motivate the nodes in terms of cooperation to avoid selfish behavior. A novel mechanism Incentive and Punishment Scheme (IPS) has been proposed in this article where vehicles with higher weight and cooperation are elected as Heads during the election process. Vickrey, Clarke, and Groves (VCG) model has been used to scrutinize the weight of these heads. Vehicle participating in the election process can increase its incentives (reputation) by active participation (forwarding data). Vehicles with repeated selfish behavior are punished. The monitoring nodes monitor the performance of their neighbor nodes after the election process. A mathematical model and algorithms has been developed for the election, monitoring and incentive processes. The proposed approach has been simulated through VDTNSim environment to analyze the performance of the proposed IPS. The performance results demonstrate that the proposed schemes outperform the existing schemes in terms of packet delivery ratio, average delivery delay, average cost, and overhead.

IEEE Acess, 2019, 12p.

By Christian B. N. Gade

This article has two objectives, both of which are new. First, it presents a new framework of punishment in nine dimensions, which makes it possible to distinguish sys- tematically between different conceptualizations of the nature of punishment. Second, using the framework, it discusses the relationship between restorative justice and punishment, showing that some cases of restorative jus- tice constitute punishment from the perspectives of some of the punishment positions in the framework but not for others. Thus, according to some positions, restorative jus- tice (mediation, conferences, circles, etc.) is punishment.

Wiley, 2020, 29p.

The state is restricted in the imposition of punishment by the requirements of legality, equality, and the obligation to refrain from infringing certain important human rights. It is important to consider, too, restrictions on the authority re- sponsible for setting the sentence. The imposition of punishment, like the deter- mination of guilt or innocence, is usually understood as a judicial exercise.1 The importance of the judge lies at the heart of procedural fairness, which demands that individuals have the right of access to court in the determination of a crim- inal charge.2 The responsibility of the judge for the imposition of punishment is also of central importance, though, to the characterization of the sentence itself (and not just the manner of its imposition) as lawful or just.

31p.

By Masganti Sit

ismilllahirrramanirrahiim. Segala puji bagi Allah yang telah memberikan kami kemampuan untuk menyelesaikan penulisan buku yang berjudul “Kisah Inspiratif Pendidikan Anak dalam Al-Qur’an.” Kami bersyukur dengan segala limpahan rahmat-Nya sehingga memiliki kesempatan menuliskan ide-ide dalam modul ini. Salawat dan salam kepada Rasulullah, Muhammad SAW yang telah dipilih Allah sebagai penyampai Risalah Tauhid kepada umat manusia. Kerinduan kami kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya mudah-mudahan dapat tertunaikan dengan syafaat beliau di hari akhir, Aamiin. Terima kasih kepada Ketua Prodi Magister Pendidikan Agama Islam Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiayah dan Keguruan Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara Medan yang telah mempercayai kami menjadi pengasuh mata kuliah Parenting Islami Tahun Akademi 2023-2024. Terima kasih kepada para mahasiswa yang menjadi penulis dalam buku ini

Research Gate July 2024, 209p.

By Hackjin Kim

It has long been debated whether approach and avoidance behaviors are controlled by largely segregated and functionally disso- ciable neural systems or they are served by a common neural mechanism (Boureauand Dayan, 2011; Cools et al., 2011; Palminteri and Pessiglione, 2017). In fact, much anatomical as well as neuropharmacological evidence seems to support the dual systems view. For example, one network including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the nucleus accumbens (NAC)/the ventral striatum (VS) is preferentially involved in approach behavior, whereas another network including the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), the dorsal striatum (DS), the insula, and the amygdala is involved in avoidance behavior (Palminteri and Pessiglione, 2017). In addition, this dual systems view seems to be also supported by functional dissociation between dopaminergic (DA) and serotonergic (5-HT) neuromodulatory systems, which have been shown to be involved in approach and avoidance behaviors, respectively (Daw et al., 2002). Alternatively, other theoretical and empirical studies support the uni ed system view, which suggests that approach and avoidance behaviors are not clearly distinguished from each other, possibly sharing common neural circuitries (Kim et al., 2006; Palminteri et al., 2015; Solomon and Corbit, 1974). In this article, I will rst review some key neural substrates of approach and avoidance behaviors, highlighting the inconsistencies between ndings that support the dual vs. uni ed systems views. Later I will suggest an alternative model of approach and avoidance learning based on hierarchical allostatic regulation, whereby con icts in competing internal bodily needs are regulated by incorporating external sensory information. This model can provide a useful theoretical framework to reconcile the inconsistencies, to integrate the current ndings, and to raise concrete and testable hypotheses.

Research Gate, 2021, 9p.

By Collin M McCabe

Large-scale cooperation, or the willingness of individuals to incur costs in order to help others, is a defining trait of the human species. However, cooperation poses a theoretical puzzle: since it is individually costly to cooperate, it seems that natural selection should favor non-cooperation (defection). Recently, it has been proposed that coordinated, collective punishment by cooperators of defectors can allow cooperation to invade a population of defectors. Here, we address the fact that in this previous analysis, coordinated punishment was only available to cooperators; defectors had no ability to punish cooperators (i.e. antisocial punishment was not possible). In other models, the inclusion of antisocial punishment has been shown to undermine the ability of punishment to promote cooperation. Thus we examine the effect of allowing coordinated antisocial punishment on the emergence of cooperation. Our results suggest that punishment confers no competitive advantage when it is a strategy available to both cooperators and defectors. While coordinated prosocial punishers can invade a population of non-punishing defectors, they cannot invade a population of coordinated antisocial punishers. These results question the conclusion that coordinated punishment played a central role in the evolution of human cooperation, and highlight the importance of not arbitrarily excluding antisocial punishment strategies from evolutionary models.

Research Gate · May 2014, 20p.

By Angela Diane Crocker and Stephen Allister Peté

Judicial corporal punishment is still widely used in many countries in Africa. Even those African countries which have abolished the practice have only done so relatively recently, following protracted struggles in the courts. In Britain, which was one of the major colonial powers in Africa, calls for a return to judicial corporal punishment continue to be made, more than half a century after its abolition in that country. The idea that the lash is the only form of punishment that is able to curb rampant criminality continues to exert a powerful hold over the public imagination in both Britain and its ex-colonies in Africa. This article focuses on both Britain and its former colonies in Africa and seeks to address the question as to why a method of punishment which, in theory, was becoming outmoded during the nineteenth century, continues to be used in certain countries in Africa and, even where it is not used, took an inordinately long time to be abolished. The extraordinary and continuing popularity of the idea of judicial corporal punishment, in the African context is examined and explained.

OBITER 2007, 20p.

By Victor Bailey

The history of English criminal justice has been my research focus for over forty years, yet a documentary history of the ‘long’ nineteenth century, covering the years from 1776 to 1914, was always likely to be a mite challenging for a single author. It is at such times that one is reminded of the value of the community of historians, whose scholarship is invaluable when ‘quick study’ is required. I have relied heavily on the research of historians Doug Hay and John Beattie, as well as the scholarship of those they so effectively supervised: Simon Devereaux, Allyson May, and Greg Smith. By the same token, this four-volume edifice rests heavily on the research of Peter King, Randy McGowen, David Philips, Marty Wiener, Sean McConville, and Vic Gatrell. Finally, we are all in debt to Robert Shoemaker, Tim Hitchcock, and Clive Emsley for their scholarly direction of the Old Bailey Proceedings Online.

Taylor & Francis Group, Volume II, Justice, Mercy, Death, 2022, 41p.

By Ganga Shreedhar, Alessandro Tavoni, and Carmen Marchiori

With the aid of a lab experiment, we explored how imperfect monitoring and punishment networks impact appropriation, punishment, and beliefs in a common-pool resource appropriation dilemma. We examined the differences between a complete network—with perfect monitoring and punishment, in which everyone can observe and punish everyone else—and two imperfect networks that systematically reduced the number of subjects who could monitor and punish others: the directed and undirected circle networks. We found that free riders were punished in all treatments, but network topology affected the type of punishment. The undirected circle induced more severe and prosocial punishment compared to the other two networks. Both imperfect networks were more efficient overall, as the larger punishment capacity available in the complete network elicited a higher amount of punishment.

EnvironmentandDevelopmentEconomics(2019),1–29

By Ole Martin Moen & Aksel Braanen Sterri

Corporal punishment is punishment by means of infliction of bodily pain. In this chapter we discuss the ethical permissibility of corporal punishment, focusing on the method of judicial caning as this is carried out in Singapore. We compare the overall effects of this type of corporal punishment to incarceration in three domains: the welfare of individual convicts (Section 1), fairness between different categories of convicts (Section 2), and the welfare of society at large (Section 3). We conclude that although there are downsides to corporal punishment that should be taken very seriously, this method of punishment also has a number of upsides. We are mistaken, moreover, if we assume that it is more humane to inflict psychological pain over long stretches of time (as in the case of incarceration) than to inflict intense bodily pain over a very short period of time (as in the case of corporal punishment).

The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Punishment, 2024, 25p.

By Simeon Chavel

Many works collected in the Hebrew Bible present Israel’s god as one who punishes children because of their parents, and entire generations because of their predecessors. Intergenerational punishment is an idea about how Yahweh holds people of Israel and Judea to account for certain offenses, be it the nation as a whole, specific groups within the nation, or individuals.1 Most writings that engage the idea present it positively, as a feature of godly greatness. Two later texts, though, present Judeans criticizing it and Yahweh responding to the criticism, at Jer 31 and Ezek 18. How did the idea that Yahweh behaves this way originate? Why did most writers see it as positive? How did some come to challenge it? And why, for over two thousand years, has it been so misunder- stood – to the persistent denigration of Jews and Judaism?

The Pentateuch and Its Readers, Ed. Joel S. Baden and Jeffrey Stackert, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023, pp. 285–306

By Kieran Edmond James

Based on my extensive interviews with ex-football star Henry Dyer, I explain and contextualise the following events so as to illustrate how discipline and punishment worked in the Western Fiji towns from 1985 up until the present: the imprisonment of Dyer and his escape and recapture during the military coup year of 1987; Dyer’s removal from the captaincy and the Fiji team to play Australia in November 1988, due to his alleged involvement in criminal activities; Dyer jumping the stadium fence to avoid police before a national-league game at Lautoka; and Dyer’s recent release from court with the case dismissed. Also covered is: an Indigenous villager’s theft of money from a Chinese gangster. The main findings are as follows: Even as a criminal, you are still marked as an Indigenous Fijian, via the non-mechanical approach, and hence are always an insider and subject to rehabilitation logic. Loopholes are retained, in the interests of fraternity and the awareness that, in Western Fiji, remote and thinly-populated as it is, people tend to know each other and so justice should be specifically-tailored. The strong Christian foundation of culture means that ex-prisoners will often couch their quest narratives in terms of suffering and redemption.

Imprisonment and Punishment in Fiji and the Links to Narrative Styles and Christian Culture, 18p.

By Julianna M. Lynch, Jonathan D. Lane, Colleen M. BerryessaI, Joshua RottmanI

Evidence of perpetrators’ biological or situational circumstances has been increasingly brought to bear in courtrooms. Yet, research findings are mixed as to whether this informa- tion influences folk evaluations of perpetrators’ dispositions, and subsequently, evaluations of their deserved punishments. Previous research has not clearly dissociated the effects of information about perpetrators’ genetic endowment versus their environmental circum- stances. Additionally, most research has focused exclusively on violations involving extreme physical harm, often using mock capital sentences cases as examples. To address these gaps in the literature, we employed a “switched-at-birth” paradigm to investigate whether positive or negative information about perpetrators’ genetic or environmental backgrounds influence evaluations of a perpetrator’s mental states, character, and deserved punishment. Across three studies, we varied whether the transgression involved direct harm, an impure act that caused no harm, or a case of moral luck. The results indicate that negative genetic and environmental backgrounds influenced participants’ evaluations of perpetrators’ inten- tions, free will, and character, but did not influence participants’ punishment decisions. Overall, these results replicate and extend existing findings suggesting that perpetrators’ supposed extenuating circumstances may not mitigate the punishment that others assign to them.

PLoS ONE 14(10): e0224093. 2019, 20p.

By ESPEN WALDERHAUG

he government’s proposal, Drug policy reform – from punishment to help, means that society’s reaction to illicit drugs for personal use will be transferred from the justice sector to the health sector (1). Today, the use and possession of narcotics is penalised with fines and up to six months’ imprisonment or a decision not to bring criminal charges followed by monitoring and drugs testing. This will change if the government gets its way. The police will continue to focus on use and possession, but if you are caught with small amounts of narcotics, this will instead result in a compulsory meeting with the municipal drugs counselling services. Selling drugs will continue to be criminally prosecuted as it is today. The same applies to the storage of large quantities of narcotics, production and import as well as driving under the influence.

The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2020, 3p.

By Sandy Xie, Colleen M. Berryessa, and Farah Focquaert

In 1972, Cecil Clayton suffered a serious accident during which a piece of wood shot into his head and dislodged bone shards that pierced his brain, leading to around 20 percent of his frontal lobe being surgically removed. After the removal, Clayton, who had previously been a loving husband, father, and preacher, transformed into an aggressive alcoholic whose wife divorced him. Clayton spent the next twenty years after his accident trying to get psychiatric help, suffering from extreme depression, violent episodes, anxiety, and hallucinations. Eventually, Clayton killed a sheriff’s deputy who responded to a domestic violence call. The deputy had not even left his car when Clayton shot him point blank. Clayton did not appear to understand the wrongness of his actions, even asking a friend who was with him at the time if he should shoot other officers that came to arrest him, to which his friend answered no.

In M. Altman (Ed.), Cham, Switzerland: The Palgrave Handbook on the Philosophy of Punishment. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan., 38p.

By Rajeev K. Goel and Umad Mazhar

Capital punishment is the final frontier in enforcement. Given that there is no remediation in case there is an error in prosecution and/or conviction (and due to related moral issues), many nations do not have capital punishment, have eliminated this extreme form of punishment or have it on paper and have seldom used it (abolitionists in practice). The presence of death penalty, a legal instrument of crime deterrence, remains a politically charged issue worldwide.1 Typically, capital punishment is reserved for violent crimes, usually involving the death of the victims. However, in some cases, capital punishments are also handed out for other crimes. Even in nations where there is no capital punishment or where there is such punishment for specific crimes, the demonstration effect or learning on part of lawmakers might embolden them to consider suc

Wiley, 2018, 25p.

By JOAN E. DURRANT

Objective: In 1979, Sweden became the first nation to explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment of children by all caretakers in an effort to: (1) alter public attitudes toward this practice; (2) increase early identification of children at risk for abuse; and (3) promote earlier and more supportive intervention to families. The aim of this study was to examine trends over recent decades in these areas to assess the degree to which these goals have been met. Method: Primary data were collected from official Swedish sources for the following variables: public support for corporal punishment, reporting of child physical assault, child abuse mortality, prosecution rates, and intervention by the social authorities. Lines of best fit were generated and Cox and Stuart tests for trend were conducted. Results: Public support for corporal punishment has declined, identification of children at risk has increased, child abuse mortality is rare, prosecution rates have remained steady, and social service intervention has become increasingly supportive and preventive. Conclusions: The Swedish ban has been highly successful in accomplishing its goals.

Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 435–448, 1999

By Rev. Aaron Pidel, S.J. 

As with most tricky pastoral questions, distinctions prove helpful. Ever since Augustine, the tradition has distinguished between two different kinds of evil: “Fault (culpa) is the evil we do, but punishment (poena) is the evil we suffer” (De lib. arb., bk. 1, ch. 1). Aquinas inherits this distinction, differentiating broadly between the evil of fault (malum culpae), e.g., sin and guilt, and the evil of punishment (malum poenae), or defects of “form or integrity” such as sickness or poverty (De malo, q. 1, a. 4). There is, moreover, a key difference between the two kinds of evil. Whereas the evil of fault is sheer waste, contributing nothing to the good of the universe, the evil of punishment is always connected to some other creature’s flourishing. A stab wound is the consequence of steel being good steel; pandemics are the consequence of a coronavirus flourishing in its own way. The evil of punishment always takes place within an interconnected order, where creatures depend not only on God, but also on each other. As a result, one may say that the evil of punishment is not directly willed by God, but only indirectly, as the consequence of maintaining the good of order.

Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Volume 9, Number 10, October 2020, 4p.

By George W Holden

The discipline and punishment of children by parents is among the most commonly investigated topics in developmental psychology. Discipline has long occupied a central role in views about socialization, specifically the processes by which children are taught the skills, values, and motivations to become competent adults. The types of disciplinary techniques used by parents reflect a core ingredient of those parents’ approach to child rearing. Furthermore, the particular types of disciplinary techniques used have long been related to children’s outcomes. This is true both in theoretical writings and subsequent empirical evidence. Discipline and punishment is not a simple topic to study for several reasons: there is confusion over terminology and conceptual issues, the subject matter reflects a dyadic event, embedded in larger contexts of ongoing relationships, family, and neighborhoods, as well as culture, and disciplinary practices that are determined by multiple sources and change over time are at the intersection of cognition, emotion, and behavior. Discipline occurs when there is a breakdown in child management and the child has made, in the parent’s view, a transgression. Disciplinary techniques are those methods used by parents to correct misbehavior, discourage inappropriate behavior, and gain compliance from their children. These techniques consist of a variety of actions and reactions and include such common techniques as reasoning, psychological control, coercion by threats or corporal punishment, time-outs, withdrawal of privileges, or ignoring. Some investigators focus on a group of disciplinary techniques labeled “ineffective discipline” but also called “maladaptive,” “dysfunctional,” or “inept” parenting. Such actions inadvertently reinforce misbehavior or model inappropriate behavior. Although most of the research on discipline has focused on parental punishments, attention is now being devoted to the topics of child compliance, autonomy, self-regulation, and ways of engaging children in cooperative interactions.

Reaserch Gate, 2012, 41p.

By Teodolinda Barolini

Dante’s linguistic treatise, De vulgari eloquentia, is not without joy in linguistic difference and invention. However, the treatise’s signature view of linguistic difference is its powerfully punitive account of the Tower of Babel. Linguistic diversity, aka “confusion of tongues”, is the punishment meted out to Nimrod and his followers for their presumptuous building of the Tower of Babel: thus, difference is punishment. This essay traces Dante’s evolution as he moves from De vulgari eloquentia to the encounter with Nembrot (as Dante calls Nimrod) in Inferno 31 and then to Paradiso 26. The punishment of Inferno 31 is no longer differen- tiated language but lack of language: Dante punishes Nembrot not with linguistic diversity, but by assigning him a non-language that communicates non-sense. Adam’s great discourse on linguistic creation in Paradiso 26 signals full transition: from difference as punishment to difference as pleasure.

Textual Cultures 12.1 (2019): 137–154p.