Nikhil's Blog

The Paradox Of Punishment

When we were at school, the teacher had to resort to the threat of punishment to keep the children under control. She had to do that because, otherwise, the children would create a ruckus and refuse to sit in class. Some teachers would beat the kids to instill some sense into them. If you are from the West, you might not relate to this, but if you are from India, you’d know how that simple formula kept us all in check for eight hours a day at school.

The threat of punishment and the power to enforce it are two important pillars of maintaining discipline anywhere in society. Every nation—be it democratic or autocratic—has used the threat of punishment; it’s always present in the law. You are not supposed to hurt others, or you will be punished. So why do people commit crimes despite knowing they risk facing harsh punishment?

That’s because the mere existence of punishment isn’t enough. The threat of punishment isn’t enough. The power to enforce it, as well as setting examples of it, is equally important to instill discipline among a large population. The bigger the crowd, the greater the responsibility—and the stronger the threat of punishment needs to be. If there’s no punishment, people won’t take the law seriously. If the punishment is too harsh, people will revolt. There’s a huge conundrum at play here.

But isn’t severe punishment a sign of barbarity, an act of cruelty? This is one of the most common issues in democratic nations, where the power of judgment and long-term decision-making lies in the hands of the people. People make decisions based on factors that directly influence them regardless of how it impacts the society at large. In a democracy, people don’t vote for what’s right—they vote for what seems right for them in that given time. They end up electing any representative who promises them an easy life with minimum effort.

Why do leaders make false promises to people? Or rather, why do elected representatives make promises knowing they aren’t good for the people or the nation? Because they are short-sighted by design. To them, immediate gratification is more important than helping the community—and thereby the nation. These individuals thrive on the backing of a few affluent supporters who finance and morally support their political journey. In return, the representatives make these benefactors' lives easier.

When these elected representatives come together to form a government, you essentially have a group of people who owe many favors to many individuals—favors they must repay, or they risk losing their seat to someone else waiting to do the same.

Society, often unknowingly, ends up being governed by people who care more about the favors they owe than about justice or public welfare. They seek to please voters so they aren’t voted out in the next election. This leads to a growing disdain for law and order, for maintaining the decorum of society, and for its upliftment. The cycle of favor trades overpowers the notion of punishment and erodes the power to enforce it.

An innocent man dies in a road rage incident after being hit by the car of a rich businessman’s son—and the culprit walks scot-free. The man died, but there’s no punishment for the killer. How many times have you seen such atrocities around you? I’d say countless times—and they’ll keep happening because of this paradox. The authorities cannot enforce punishment, or they risk falling out of favor—and they need those favors to survive.

The paradox of punishment is this: you cannot inflict punishment because you owe favors. You cannot avoid taking favors, or you won’t be elected. You might be thinking this is why politics is such a dirty word and politicians are a dirty bunch—but you’d be far from the truth.

In contrast, autocratic regimes are much fiercer in enforcing brutal punishment, because they have no favors to repay. Their only concern is preventing rebellion or disruption so that their rule appears peaceful. That’s why they often become tyrannical when rebellions intensify.

The cycle of punishment persists even outside politics. A manager in a corporate setting is responsible for managing subordinates. A manager usually has three types of people on their team: one they like, one they’re neutral toward, and one they dislike. Who do you think will be shielded from punishment if the team fails to meet its targets? The one the manager likes, obviously.

The reason isn’t literal favoritism but a bond that exists between the manager and the favored employee. Without such a bond, the manager feels vulnerable and alone—because what if the team unites against them? The neutral employee receives no special treatment but also avoids the extremes, so they’re more motivated to impress the manager. Only the disliked employee has the incentive to rebel and he doesn't have enough support to standout. Besides, in corporate settings, rebellions are curbed more effectively than in democracies because corporations function on autocratic principles.

Whether in personal relationships or national governance, you cannot enforce harsh punishment without relinquishing the need to be likable. One must let go of all favors and accept the consequences of harsher enforcement. Such a person will most likely be alone—especially if their peers depend on exchanging favors—but they will also be the most feared and respected for taking a stand.

Even in personal relationships, it is important to set boundaries and hold people accountable when they belittle your efforts or existence. To be respected—and feared—you must be willing to enforce consequences. In return, you might have to accept solitude, embrace your vulnerabilities, and accept that if push comes to shove, you have no favors to call in—and none to give.

So, next time you wonder why democratic countries struggle to enforce harsher punishments to maintain law and order, look at the cycle of favors at play. The more favors exist in any given system—corporate, national, or personal—the weaker the overall structure becomes.