"Good" vs. "Bad"

Lucy talks about her experience she had with a girl named Maude Quick. Maude's father was the head of jails, and Lucy referred to her as "my own personal jailer" (112). She talks about Maude being harsh when it came to punishment, but then she would be nice and comforting if she did something "good". Even though Maude might have thought she made her punishments clear, Lucy says, "It was hard to see the difference between the punishments for one set of things and the rewards for others" (111). This was especially hard for Lucy to understand because she was told by her mother that she was supposed to look up to this girl, that she was a good role model for her. 

I think in today's society, the definition of what is "good" and "bad" is confusing. I feel that little kids learn so many things from their parents, but children are also influenced by their peers. If one child is reprimanded for coming home past curfew, while their friend is only given a warning, it makes the child question his/her parents. How could something be wrong in one household and deserve punishment, while it could be no problem at all in another household? 

I also question the degree of the punishment Lucy received from Maude. Lucy says, "She would threaten to give me senna tea a purgative that caused bad stomach gripes" (111). Do harsh punishments really work? In my Sociology class we discussed the variety of punishments for certain crimes throughout the world. In certain countries, the result of shoplifting, no matter the value of the item (whether it was a flat screen television or a lip gloss) the punishment was for one finger to be cut off your hand. Studies had shown that the crime rate in these countries is very low because the punishments are so harsh. Does that mean that our crime rate would go down in the U.S. if we started cutting off people's fingers?