In terms of the cattle argument, the analogy can be extended to this situation: farmers have a need to keep the cattle in a certain location; they install electric fences. In a similar way, pupils are required to keep to non-violent behaviour; they are fitted with devices that discourage that sort of behaviour. Yes, I guess it is a matter of convenience, but it is one that allows the pupils to reap the benefits of interaction with others, and an education, etc. Remember, this is the last resort, when nothing else has worked.

I agree, the crutch behaviour is undesireable and it's difficult to tell from the article what the real reason for the pupil's request to go on the system is, other than what it says:

Other students actually ask to be wired up, say staff members, because they witness the improvement their peers make and the privileges they earn.

The story points out that the therapy has not been linked to deaths at the school:

Aside from a momentary tingling, the faint whiff of singed hair, and a couple small pinpoint marks on the skin, a single shock administered to a visitor at Rotenberg didn't produce any lasting physical effects. Five of the kids under Israel's care have died in the 35 years he's run the school, but none of those deaths were linked to aversive therapy. Israel insists the GED is better than the alternatives for his students, debilitating drugs or physical restraints.

And insists that the therapy is very successful at controlling dangerous behaviour:

While many psychologists agree with Israel that aversive therapy can work as a last resort in a very few cases to control dangerous behaviors, the school contends that the skin shocks are almost 100 percent effective in reducing those - there's less consensus on whether a method like skin shocks can really cure someone.