Prison as Punishment: A Behavior-Analytic Evaluation of Incarceration.

The authors treat prison like a punishment procedure and check if it meets behavior-analytic standards. They scan the literature for data on whether incarceration stops future crime.

They find almost no evidence that prison works as a punisher. The paper is a wake-up call for BCBAs to join criminal-justice reform.

Mass incarceration fails every test we use for punishment. It is not immediate, it is not consistent, and it produces harmful side effects.

The authors argue that behavior analysts should design alternative consequences that actually reduce crime.

Galbicka et al. (1981) already warned that overcorrection eats staff time and lacks proof it teaches new skills. Carson et al. (2017) widen the lens and say the same about prisons: big cost, thin data.

Thomas (1968) showed punishment can work in a single child when it is immediate and stimulus-specific. Carson et al. (2017) point out that prison is neither immediate nor specific, so the lab lesson does not scale.

DeVellis et al. (1979) found that bait-money alarms caught more robbers but did not stop robberies. That failure mirrors the prison story: catching people is not the same as changing behavior.

If you write behavior plans, you already pick consequences that work. Use the same lens when you vote, consult, or teach. Ask for data on rearrest rates, push for swift and certain community sanctions, and measure outcomes. Behavior analysis can help replace prisons with programs that actually reduce crime.