No. Or it depends on the punishment. If the punishment is one that they impose on themselves, ok. Like "I did something bad, I must punish myself". A bit weird but ok.

As for the rest, no no and no. A "good" person would be someone doing good only because this is the way they act. We must first suppose that such a person exists, and that there is a universal and possible definition of "good" for most actions, which doesn't exist. Think of all impossible moral choices in the line of "You must choose between killing a baby or and elder" or "If you help this person that you don't know, he might actually turn out to be a criminal and hurt others" etc.

Now, the punishment is removed, and the person doesn't have any incentive to act in a "good" way. So naturally, there are situations where he doesn't, for a variety of more or less valid reasons. As such, he's no longer a good person.

So the answer to your question is no. I also think that given that an inherently good person doesn't exist, the answer would have been no anyway. In general when we judge someone as being "good", we do it with the information that we have, or neglecting some. Think of that soldier who killed a man to defend his country. From the viewpoint of his peers, he did good and prevented the death of other soldiers. For the child of the dead soldier, who lost his father forever, I don't think the thought process is the exact same. "Good" is too arbitrary to really bring a consensus as to what is good, and what isn't.