What is the reason for our apparent back-sliding? Is it not plainly
the fact that we allow ourselves to be mastered by the animal
instinct to strike back? When the child does something that causes
annoyance or even damage, do we stop to consider his motive, his
"intent," or do we only respond to the _result_ of his action?
Do we have a studied policy for treating his offence, or do we slide
back to the desire to "get even" or to "pay him" for what he has
done?

Sometimes a very small offence will have grave consequences, while a
really serious fault may cause but little trouble.

Here, for instance, is Harry, who was so intent upon chasing the
woodchuck that he ran through the new-sown field, trampling down the
earth. He caused considerable damage. If your punishment assumes the
proportion dictated by the anger which the harm caused, he certainly
will be dealt with severely. Knowing that he had not meant to do
wrong, he cannot help but feel the injustice of your wrath. Of
course, he has been careless and he must be impressed with the harm
such carelessness can cause. Whether you lock him in a room or
deprive him of some special pleasure, or whether you merely talk to
him, depends upon you and upon Harry. But one thing must be certain:
Harry must not get the notion that you are avenging yourself upon
him for the harm he has done, or for the ill-feeling aroused by his
act--he must not feel that "you are taking it out of him" because
you have been made angry.

This brings us to the old rule: _Never punish in anger_.

On the other hand, while we must allow every trace of anger to