THE CATCH IN THE CONSEQUENCE

It is probably obvious that the key to stopping people from behaving badly lies in the consequences that are imposed on them when they do what we don’t want them to do – not conform to a Norm, break a Rule or violate the Law. The general consensus on the subject is that consequences need to be severe enough to have a deterrent effect on the behavior we want to stop. The only debate is about how severe is severe enough. But there is a catch.

Behaving badly is willful. It is a choice people make and they make that choice because their bad behavior gets them something they want or need. There’s the catch. Want and need are not the same thing. Want is desire and is negotiable. Nobody gets everything they want and certainly not exactly when they want it. Most of us learn that lesson as infants and find ways to cope with our disappointment. Need, on the other hand, is necessity. It is something we must have and is not negotiable. Brooklyn born psychologist Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs (below), developed in 1943, is still the most insightful and useful description of human needs, at least for the purpose of this discussion.

As you can see, needs are not things we can do without, especially the Basic Needs. We will die if we don’t meet our Basic Needs and will live a pretty miserable life if we don’t meet our Psychological and Self-fulfillment Needs.

Here’s how the catch works. People who choose to behave badly because it gets them something they want can be deterred from that behavior by the prospect of having to face severe consequences. For example, if a wife and mother wants to have sex with a man who is not her husband, knowing that if she gets caught her husband could divorce her and she could lose custody of her children can deter her from doing so. Her knowledge of the consequences provides her an opportunity to weigh the benefits of her bad behavior against its potential costs. In this example, the woman may very well decide that the pleasure she might derive from having sex with this other man is not worth the pain and suffering she would have to endure if she were divorced and lost custody of her children.

In contrast, people who choose to behave badly because it gets them something they need will not be deterred from that behavior by the prospect of having to face severe consequences. Here is another example. If a man is out of work, broke and needs to rob a convenience store to get the money to buy food to feed his family, knowing that he could go to jail if he gets caught will not stop him. His knowledge of the consequences, no matter how severe they may be, doesn’t matter. He doesn’t have a choice. If he doesn’t get the money to buy food he and his family starve to death. The only latitude he has is to try to not get caught.

That’s the catch. Consequences only have a deterrent effect when the bad behavior they are intended to control is motivated by want (desire). Consequences have no deterrent effect when the bad behavior they are intended to control is motivated by need (necessity). When bad behavior is motivated by need, consequences only serve to punish the person who has behaved badly or eliminate that person from the social context in which the bad behavior occurred. For example, when someone is physically addicted to an illegal drug, getting more of that drug is no longer a want. It is a need. Therefore, imposing longer and longer mandatory prison sentences on people who possess illegal drugs is never going to deter drug addicts from using drugs. All it will do is fill up our prisons, which is exactly what has happened. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world and 20% of all incarcerations in the U.S. are for non-violent drug offences. 

Unfortunately, most people, and in particular most policy makers in the United States, aren’t aware of this catch. They keep increasing the severity of the consequences for bad behavior hoping to achieve a deterrent effect that will stop that behavior. When that doesn't work, and it never does if the behavior is motivaed by need, they get frustrated and look for someone to blame. In the example above, the case of drug addicts continuing to use drugs despite increasingly severe consequences, the policy makers blamed the drug dealers and started a War on Drugs aimed at them. That was never going to work, and hasn't, because drug addiction is a demand side problem, not a supply side problem. People don't use drugs because they are available. They use drugs because they need to feel better.

How do we stop people from behaving badly when their behavior is motivated by need? The answer is, we do that by teaching them acceptable ways to meet their needs and, at the same time, give them what they need while they're  learning.

The U.S. Department of Labor's Job Corps program is a perfect example of this approach in action. In case you are not familiar with Job Corps, it is a comprehensive, residential, education and job training program for economically disadvantaged youth ages 16 through 24. It was created by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 as part of his War on Poverty. There are currently 125 Job Corps centers in the United States with at least one center in every state and Puerto Rico serving over 50,000 young adults a year. Job Corps teaches its students acceptable ways to get what they need and, at the same time, gives them what they need while they're learning, including food, clothing, shelter, medical and dental care, recreational opportunities and a small bi-weekly stipend. Job Corps’ unprecedented success is why it has lasted for more than 50 years and why it is one of only a handful of federal social programs that still has strong bi-partisan support in Congress. Liberals like Job Corps because it gives economically disadvantaged young people, who are not in school and don't have the skills to get a job, a second chance. Conservatives like it because it turns people who would be liabilities into employable, productive, responsible, tax paying citizens who then become assets.

I am not suggesting Job Corps is the only or the best approach to stopping bad behavior. It is far from perfect, although most of its flaws are administrative, not programmatic. What I am suggesting is that our public schools, criminal justice system, religious institutions and community organizations could learn a lot from Job Corps because its consistent success over half a century on an enormous scale (more than two million students served) is proof that we can not only stop people from behaving badly, but prevent people from behaving badly before they need to do so.