i know this isnt really the derby kids arent this discussion, but they are the easiest example, so i will use them. do you think those kids thought, "hey, lets have this party and drink, and if we get caught its not big deal cuz we'll only be suspended a week." or do you think they thought, "we won't get caught". kids who drink dont believe they will get caught. every high school signs an agreement of whatever their policy is. everyone is going to sign it, those who have made the personal decision not to drink would still not drink without the policy.... but i would assert those he knew that didn't drink still would not have drank had the policy said, two week suspension for example.
I totally disagree with you on this. I think the severity of the punishment absolutely can have a deterrent effect on the actions of student athletes. Since you brought it up as an example, I think that this recent episode involving the Derby team would not have happened at all or at least several of the people who committed the infraction would not have used alcohol, if they had at the start of the season signed a zero tolerance agreement on alcohol, tobacco and drug usage like the Shawnee Mission policy agreement and they believed it would be enforced. I believe that the thought of being thrown off the wrestling team for the rest of the season would have definitely stopped more than one of them from using alcohol that day. I believe wrestling is too important for several of them involved. I just do not accept the idea that the severity of punishment does not have an influence on preventing people from committing an undesirable action.
Of course you would prefer that a person not commit the undesirable action for a positive reason and not just because they fear the punishment, but that will not always happen so society has to have consequences in place to deter certain offenses.
