Time-Out Procedures in School Settings

Time-out is a consequence-based strategy that includes altering a child’s environment such that he or she has relatively less contact with reinforcement, contingent upon a target behavior. Time-out may be considered a type of negative punishment procedure because it includes the removal of reinforcing stimuli, resulting in a decrease in the future frequency of a target behavior. This chapter describes time-out and several notable variations of time-out that range along a continuum of intrusiveness. In addition, procedural elements commonly incorporated within time-out are briefly described, followed by additional considerations when using time-out in school settings.

Diferencias entre medidas de protección y medidas cautelares de los artículos 75 y 243 del reglamento penitenciario español

El objeto de este trabajo es la diferenciación entre las medidas de protección adoptadas en el seno del procedimiento disciplinario de aquellas otras medidas que pueden adoptarse en otros supuestos. Las primeras se encuentran reguladas en el artículo 243 RP. Las segundas medidas, de acuerdo con el artículo 75 RP, solo podrán ser ordenadas por el Director de la prisión para impedir que los internos puedan alterar la seguridad y el buen orden de los establecimientos. Las medidas cautelares del artículo 243 RP y las limitaciones regimentales del artículo 75 RP poseen una naturaleza común en tanto que ambas figuras tienen una misma finalidad instrumental. La única diferencia entre ambas estaría en que las medidas cautelares del artículo 243 RP adoptan esa finalidad instrumental en el seno de un procedimiento sancionador, con todas aquellas garantías procedimentales que asisten al interno imputado. Sin embargo, estas mismas garantías no existen cuando se aplican las limitaciones regimentales del artículo 75 RP. Por todo ello es necesario modificar el régimen jurídico del art. 75 RP dotándolo de unas mínimas garantías acordes con los principios de seguridad jurídica y su obligado control por parte del Juez de Vigilancia Penitenciaria.The object of this essay is to differentiate the protection measures adopted in the disciplinary procedure of those others that also could be adopted in other suppositions. The first measures are regulated in the art. 243 RP. The second measures, according to the article 75 RP only the Director of the Prison may adopt these measures to contain the convicts who might alter the daily coexistence and the safety in the prisions. These measures are going to be viewed by the article 243 RP, from the restrictions of the article 75 RP. Both possess a common nature and an instrumental only aim. The only difference between both legal articles is, in the first case of article 243 RP, the measures are adopted inside the punishment procedure. In the case of article 75 RP is really a key to protect the inmates safety of the attacks or to be protected from themselves. Nevertheless, the same guarantees do not exist when the restrictions are applied according to art. 75 RP. Restrictions that, in the event of 75.1 RP, have the same instrumental nature that protect with the measures of the art.243 RP. It is necessary to modify the juridical procedure of the art. 75 RP providing it with a few minimal guarantees according to the rules of proportionality and of juridical safety, and to control all of these circunstances by the penitentiary surveillance magistrate.

A Variable-Interval Punishment Procedure for Assessing Anxiolytic Effects of Drugs

Laboratory techniques for assessing the behavioral effects of anxiolytic drugs often involve the use of a punishing procedure and rats or other species as subjects. Some aspects of conventional experimental designs, however, make difficult interpretation of the drugs' effects. The present experiment made use of a modified punishment with rats, which was designed to reduce interpretative difficulties. Both food and shock presentations were scheduled at similar, though independent, variable intervals. Chlordiazepoxide and amobarbital were found to produce dose-related decreases in the suppression of responding produced by punishment.