Decisions made about student punishments have been arbitrary or capricious in schools. The punishment was chosen for its deterrent effects. Punishment may deter the individual punished or others from doing the same thing; punishment may help rehabilitate the guilty party; and punishment may separate a potentially dangerous person from society. The point of punishment is to balance the scales of justice, "an eye for an eye." Justice demands that evil be punished. Thus, punishment is not intended primarily to deter further evil; it is designed to provide retribution. Viewing punishment as retribution explains why it is right to punish the guilty and not the innocent. Obviously, if the guilty person has not been punished, retribution has not been received. Similarly, the retribution theory explains why the punishment must fit the crime. If the retribution exceeds the evil, the scales of justice have not been balanced. Perhaps the weakest point in the retribution theory of punishment is the suggestion that the universe somehow requires that evildoers be punished with a compensating quantity of pain. However, the retribution theory is not likely to be successful. We deem to be able to conduct meaningful ethical arguments. Ethical claims are not simply matters of taste. Perhaps many of our real moral dilemmas can be resolved by moral reflection. Certain kinds of disciplinary practices are morally wrong. Especially the corporal punishment of students does not work. It does not do what it is supposed to do. Why, then, do teachers resort to corporal punishment? It's a shortcut. It usually stops the unruly behavior at the moment, temporarily. It has no positive permanent effects that we know of. It has many negative effects. The psychological harm is done to all in the class and the lesson of violence is well learned. The most important point is that it does not achieve the stated purpose of maintaining discipline because it is treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause, unruly behavior. The use of corporal punishment is a failed practice. The child displaying unruly behavior is a child crying out. Unruly behavior is a cry for help, and we answer such pleas for compassion and understanding with the end of a paddle. Teacher can not whip the hurt out of this child. His behavior continues and worsens and leads to failure after failure. He grows to adulthood and becomes another of our modern and enlightened society's losers-miserable and a burden to all of us. There are alternative to the use of corporal punishment-alternatives that maintain classroom discipline and provide an environment for learning and a place for effective and rewarding teaching. Instead of paddling the student into temporary submission, why can't our teachers be trained to recognize a student with problems and have at their disposal the referral sources for psychological help or family counseling? The training of teachers, administrators, the referral sources, the identification and counseling will take money. We will probably need to decrease classroom size to allow teachers to meet the emotional as well as the intellectual needs of students. Educational administrators are always complaining of short money. But isn't the future worth such an investment? We must invest in our children or lose our future.