that the parole law is a step in the right direction, and it should be upheld by all who believe offenders should have a better chance. If human nature in the administration of law could be relied on; if there were some method of getting men of courage and capacity with plenty of competent aid and assistance to take charge of paroles and prisons, then the ideal sentence should be one that fixed no time whatever. It should simply leave a prisoner for study and observation until it was thought wise and safe to release him from restraint. This like all the rest could not be done with the present public attitude toward criminals. So long as men subscribe to the prevailing idea of crime and punishment, no officials could stand up against public opinion in the carrying out of a new and radical theory, and even if such a board should be established, the law under which it acted would soon be repealed or the members of the board forced to resign and a new one would take its place.
In spite of the fact that the effect of parole boards has been to lengthen sentences, and in spite of my personal belief that they should be materially shortened, I am confident that the parole system should be maintained with the hope of improvement and the chance of gradually educating the public until sentences can be naturally shortened, and the care and control of prisoners be placed on a scientific and humane basis.
A board of pardons and paroles should be made up of men who are really interested in their work. They should carefully keep up with the literature on crime and punishment; they should be scientists in all matters touching their work, and they should be men of humane feelings. It is too much to expect that all of this can be found in a board for a long time to come, but with good sense and the right attitude of mind the board could employ the skill that it does not now have. Every prisoner should be the subject of attention, not of spying, but of friendly interest that would inspire confidence and trust,–such an interest as a wise doctor has in a patient. This attention would in most cases gain the confidence of the prisoner and make it possible to find out how far he could be trusted, at the same time showing the treatment and environment he needed for future development. Where this confidence could not be had, safety would probably require a longer term. Most men respond to kind treatment. The criminal has so long looked on the world as his enemy, especially the official world, that he hesitates to trust anyone. Still the really sympathetic and kindly man who is honestly trying to help him will sooner or later get his confidence and cooeperation. Every prisoner should understand that all of those around him are anxious to educate him so as to fit him for society and to put him in an environment where he can live. Even then there would be mistakes, and a portion of the prisoners would be so defective or imperfect that they never could be released; but under proper treatment many would be restored to association with their fellow-men.
It will be a long time before it will be safe to make sentences entirely indeterminate. Boards cannot be trusted to give such time and work and judgment to their task as will prevent cases of great injustice. Until such time shall come either the statutes must fix an unbending and arbitrary time which takes no account of individual cases, or it must be left with the court or jury. Clearly the jury should fix the maximum, leaving the members of the board to reduce the penalty if they deem it wise.
Most men are forgotten when they go to prison, especially if they have no active friends on the outside. No board can fully keep in mind all the inmates of a large prison. It may be that by some system their attention is automatically called to the man at certain times, but this matters very little. Someone should know he is there and why, and who he is. He should not be an abstract, but a concrete man. For these reasons, a limit should always be set on a punishment and the limit should not be too long. The idea of a tribunal, perhaps including the judge who passed sentence, having the power and the duty imposed upon him to review sentences and reduce them if it seemed best from time to time, might have a good effect. The feelings of most men in reference to the degree of punishment change as time goes by. Always with the punishment is a strong feeling of both hate and fear. It is not possible really to punish, that is, to inflict suffering without hate or fear. The most necessary thing in preparing soldiers to fight, is to teach them to hate and fear the enemy. In the trial of a case, these feelings are fresh in the minds of the prosecutor and the judge when the case is finished, and they necessarily act more or less under the dominance of their passions. In time these feelings fade, and a saner and kindlier judgment takes the place of the first feelings that possessed the mind.
With the parole system is going on a movement for probation. This provides that the convicted man need not be sent to prison but may be released on certain terms, sometimes requiring that money taken shall be refunded. After that he shall be placed under the supervision of some friend or agent who will report from time to time to probation officers or to the court. Probation is generally granted to young prisoners and first offenders but usually not permitted in cases that the law classifies as the most serious.
Parole and probation are much the same in theory. In both these cases the clemency should depend much more upon the man than on the crime. It does not follow that a very serious crime shows a poorer moral fibre than a lesser one. It may well be that the seemingly slight transgressions, like stealing small amounts, picking pockets and the like, show a really weaker nature than goes with a more heroic crime. There is no such liability to repeat in homicide as there is in forgery, pocket-picking or swindling. The seriousness of a homicide is likely to make it impossible that the same man shall ever kill again. Many such men would be perfectly safe on probation or parole. But the smaller things that are easily concealed and come from an effort of the condemned to live, either without work or in a better way than his ability or training permits him to do in the hard and unfair conditions that society imposes, are often much harder to overcome. At any rate, the main question should be in regard to the man and not the crime. In cases of parole or probation, society should do what it can to help the man make good. Generally employment is necessary and a different and easier environment often indispensable. If organized society would only take the pains to make an easier environment for all the less favored, the problem would be fairly simple and most of the misery that comes from crime and prison would gradually disappear.
XXXVI
REMEDIES
Students of crime and punishment have never differed seriously in their conclusions. All investigations have arrived at the result that crime is due to causes; that man is either not morally responsible, or responsible only to a slight degree. All have doubted the efficacy of punishment and practically no one has accepted the common ideas that prevail as to crime, its nature, its treatment and the proper and efficient way of protecting society from the criminal.
The real question of importance is: What shall be done? Can crime be cured? If not, can it be wiped out and how? What rights have the public? What rights has the criminal? What obligations does the public owe the criminal? What duties does each citizen owe society?
It must be confessed that all these questions are more easily asked than answered. Perhaps none of them can be satisfactorily answered. It is a common obsession that every evil must have a remedy; that if it cannot be cured today, it can be tomorrow; that man is a creature of infinite possibilities and all that is needed is time and patience. Given these a perfect world will eventuate.
I am convinced that man is not a creature of infinite possibilities. I am by no means sure that he has not run his race and reached, if not passed, the zenith of his power. I have no idea that every evil can be cured; that all trouble can be banished; that every maladjustment can be corrected or that the millennium can be reached now and here or any time or anywhere. I am not even convinced that the race can substantially improve. Perhaps here and there society can be made to run a little more smoothly; perhaps some of the chief frictions incident to life may be avoided; perhaps we can develop a little higher social order; perhaps we may get rid of some of the cruelty incident to social organization. But how?
To start with: it seems to me to be clear that there is really no such thing as crime, as the word is generally understood. Every activity of man should come under the head of “behavior.” In studying crime we are merely investigating a certain kind of human behavior. Man acts in response to outside stimuli. How he acts depends on the nature, strength, and inherent character of the machine and the habits, customs, inhibitions and experiences that environment gives him. Man is in no sense the maker of himself and has no more power than any other machine to escape the law of cause and effect. He does as he must. Therefore, there is no such thing as moral responsibility in the sense in which this expression is ordinarily used. Punishment as something inflicted for the purpose of giving pain is cruelty and vengeance and nothing else. Whatever should be done to the criminal, if we have humanity and imagination, we must feel sympathy for him and consider his best good along with that of all the rest of the members of the society whose welfare is our concern.
While punishment cannot be defended, still self-defense is inherent in both individuals and society and, without arguing its justification, no one can imagine a society that will not assert it and act for its defense. This will be true regardless of whether the given society is worth preserving or not. Inherent in all life and organization is the impulse of self-preservation. Those members of society who are sufficiently “anti-social” from the standpoint of the time and place will not be tolerated unduly to disturb the rest. These, in certain instances, will be destroyed or deprived of their power to harm. If society has a right attitude toward the subject, if it has imagination and sympathy and understanding, it will isolate these victims, not in anger but in pity, solely for the protection of the whole. Some there are who ask what difference it makes whether it is called punishment or not. I think that the attitude of society toward the criminal makes the whole difference, and any improvement is out of the question until this attitude influences and controls the whole treatment of the question of crime and punishment.
If doctors and scientists had been no wiser than lawyers, judges, legislatures and the public, the world would still be punishing imbeciles, the insane, the inferior and the sick; and treating human ailments with incantations, witchcraft, force and magic. We should still be driving devils out of the sick and into the swine.
Assuming then that man is governed by external conditions; that he inevitably reacts to certain stimuli; that he is affected by all the things that surround him; that his every act and manifestation is a result of law; what then must we and can we do with and for the criminal?
First of all we must abandon the idea of working his moral reformation, as the term “moral reformation” is popularly understood. As well might we cure the physically ill in that way! Man works according to his structure. He never does reform and cannot reform. As he grows older his structure changes and from increase of vitality or from decrease of vitality his habits, too, may change. He may likewise learn by experience, and through the comparing and recalling of experiences and their consequences may build up rules of conduct which will restrain him from doing certain things that he otherwise would do. Anything that increases his knowledge and adds to his experience will naturally affect his habits and will either build up or tear down inhibitions or do both, as the case may be. If he has intelligence he knows he is always the same man; that he has not reformed nor repented. He may regret that he did certain things but he knows why and how he did them and why he will not repeat them if he can avoid it. The intrinsic character of the man cannot change, for the machine is the same and will always be the same, except that it may run faster or slower with the passing years, or it may be influenced by the habits gained from experience and life.
We must learn to appraise rightly the equipment of every child and, as far as possible, of every adult to the end that they may find an environment where they can live. It must never be forgotten that man is nothing but heredity and environment and that the heredity cannot be changed but the environment may be. In the past and present, the world has sought to adjust heredity to environment. The problem of the future in dealing with crime will be to adjust environment to heredity. To a large extent this can be done in a wholesale way. Any improved social arrangement that will make it easier for the common man to live will necessarily save a large number from crime. Perhaps if the social improvement should be great enough it would prevent the vast majority of criminal acts. Life should be made easier for the great mass from which the criminal is ever coming. As far as experience and logic can prove anything, it is certain that every improvement in environment will lessen crime.
Codes of law should be shortened and rendered simpler. It should not be expected that criminal codes will cover all human and social life. The old method of appealing to brute force and fear should gradually give place to teaching and persuading and fitting men for life. All prisons should be in the hands of experts, physicians, criminologists, biologists, and, above all, the humane. Every prisoner should be made to feel that the state is interested in his good as well as the good of the society from which he came. Sentences should be indeterminate, but the indeterminate sentence of today is often a menace to freedom and a means of great cruelty and wrong. The indeterminate sentence can only be of value in a well-equipped prison where each man is under competent observation as if he were ill in a hospital. And this should be supplemented with an honest, intelligent parole commission, fully equipped for thorough work. Until that time comes, the maximum penalty should be fixed by the jury, the parole board retaining the power to reduce the punishment or parole. No two crimes are alike. No two offenders are alike. Those who have no friends on the outside are forgotten and neglected after the prison doors have been closed upon them. Some men now are confined much too long; others not long enough. No doubt, owing to the imperfections of man, this will always be the case.
At present no penal institutions have the equipment or management to provide against such shortcomings. They never can have it while men believe punishment is vengeance. When the public is ready to provide for the protection of society and still to recognize and heed the impulses of humanity and mercy, it will abolish all fixed terms. As well might it send a patient to a hospital for a fixed time and then discharge him, regardless of whether he is cured or not, as to confine a convict for a definite predetermined time. If the offense is one of a serious nature that endangers the public, the prisoner should not be released until by understanding or education, or age, or the proper form of treatment, it is fairly evident that he will not offend again. When the time comes, if it is the day of his incarceration, he should be released. The smallest reflection ought to teach that for many crimes, especially for many property crimes, it is hopeless to release a prisoner in an environment where he cannot survive. An environment adjusted to his heredity must be found by the state.
All indignities should be taken away from prison life. Instead the prisoner should be taught that his act was the necessary result of cause and effect and that, given his heredity and environment, he could have done no other way. He should by teaching and experience be shown where he made his mistakes, and he should be given an environment where he can live consistently with the good of those around him.
Various reforms have been urged in the treatment of criminals and in criminal procedure in the courts. Most of these impress me as possessing no fundamental value. It is often said that the accused should be given an immediate trial; that this and subsequent proceedings should not be hindered by delay; that the uncertainties of punishment furnish the criminal with the hope of escape and therefore do not give the community the benefit of the terror that comes with the certainty of punishment that could prevent crime. I can see no basis in logic or experience for this suggestion. It is based on the theory that punishment is not only a deterrent to crime, but the main deterrent. It comes from the idea that the criminal is distinct from the rest of mankind, that vengeance should be sure and speedy and that then crime would be prevented. If this were true and the only consideration to prevent crime, then the old torture chamber and the ancient prison with all its hopelessness and horror should be restored. Logic, humanity and experience would protest against this. If there is to be any permanent improvement in man and any better social order, it must come mainly from the education and humanizing of man. I am quite certain that the more the question of crime and its treatment is studied the less faith men have in punishment.
England and Continental Europe are often pointed to as examples of sure and speedy justice. The fact that there are more convictions and fewer acquittals in England in proportion to the number of trials does not prove that the English system is better than ours. It may and probably does mean that ours is better. Here the accused has more chance. There the expense, the formality, the power of the court all conspire to destroy every opportunity of escape, regardless of innocence or guilt. Even the fact that there are fewer crimes committed in England does not prove that the system is best or that it prevents crime. An old country with its life of caste lacks the freedom and equality that naturally produce defiance of rules and customs and lead to breaches of the law. Other things being equal, a greater degree of freedom leads to more violations of rules and greater resisting power among the poor than a lesser degree of freedom. It does not necessarily follow that the country is best where the people are the most obedient. Complete obedience leads to submission, to aggression and to despotism. Doubtless China has fewer crimes than England. The power of resistance is so crushed that no one thinks of defying a master, resenting an injury, violating a rule, claiming any personal rights or protesting against caste, age, or privilege.
Always there are certain men who believe that all reform in criminal procedure must come by abolishing juries and submitting every question to a court. Those who are rich and strong and the lawyers who advocate their interests are mainly arrayed on this side. The poor and rebellious, with those who naturally or otherwise advocate their cause, stand for the juries as against the courts. Those who strive to be fair are often misled from a lack of experience and little judgment of human nature. The public is always against the accused. The press is against him. The machinery of the law is against him. The dice are loaded for his conviction. Some people have childish faith in the courts. But judges are neither infinitely wise nor infinitely good; they come from the ranks of lawyers and for the most part from those who have been long engaged in defending property rights; they are generally conservative; they are not independent of public opinion; almost invariably they reflect public opinion, which means the public opinion of the community in which they live. Few of them have much knowledge of biology, of psychology, of sociology, or even of history.
One curse of our political life comes from the fact that as soon as a man has secured an office, he has his eye on another and his whole effort is to please the people, that is, the people who express themselves the most easily. Very few judges rise to a great degree of independence or defy popular clamor. A jury is less bound by public opinion; their responsibility is divided; they are not as a rule seeking office; while swayed by the crowd they are still more independent than judges and with them the common man, the accused, has a better chance.
No doubt judges are abler, better educated, more accustomed to weighing evidence and able to arrive at a more logical conclusion than most juries. Still none of these qualities necessarily leads to just findings. Questions of right and wrong are not determined by strict rules of logic. If public opinion could come to regard the criminal as it does the insane, the imbecile, or the ill, then a judicial determination would be the best. But as long as crime is regarded as moral delinquency and punishment savors of vengeance, every possible safeguard and protection must be thrown around the accused. In the settling of opinions and the passing of judgments, mob psychology is all-powerful and really, in the last analysis, every human question comes down to the power of public opinion.
The first thing necessary to lessen crime and to relieve victims from the cruelty of moral judgments is a change of public opinion as to human responsibility. When scientific ideas on this important subject shall be generally accepted, all things that are possible will follow from it. Some headway has already been made in the direction of considering heredity and environment. Theoretically we no longer hold the insane responsible, and some allowance is made for children and the obviously defective. The discouraging thing is that the public is fickle and changeable, and any temporary feeling overwhelms the patient efforts of years. In the present mad crusade against crime consequent upon the Great War, penalties have been increased, new crimes created, and paroles and pardons have been made almost impossible. The public and press virtually declare that even insanity should not save the life of one who slays his fellow. Repeatedly the insane are hanged without a chance, and sentences of death are pronounced, where before, a term of years, or life imprisonment would have been the penalty for the offense. Individual men and collections of men are ruled not by judgment but by impulse; the voice of conscience and mercy is always very weak and drowned by the hoarse cry for vengeance.
As long as men collectively impose their will upon the individual units, they should consider that this imposition calls for intelligence, kindliness, tolerance and a large degree of sympathy and understanding. In considering the welfare of the public: the accused, his family and his friends should be included as a part. It need not be expected that all maladjustments can ever be wiped out. Organization with its close relation of individual units implies conflict. Nevertheless, the effort should be to remove all possible inducement for the violent clashing of individuals and to minimize the severity of such conflicts as are inevitable.
THE END
INDEX
Accidents, inevitability of, 48;
conditions affecting chances of, 253; law of averages in, 259.
Acquisition, instinct for, 49-50, 51; power of, not a measure of brain capacity, 51-54. Adultery, crime of, 90-91.
Adventure, chance for, an incentive to crime, 54, 55, 79, 93. Age, relation of, to crime, 251;
and disease, 252, 253.
Alcohol, relation of crime to use of, 197-198. America, emotional side of man neglected in, 55; high ratio of property crimes per capita in, 98; system of justice in, superior to that of European countries, 281. Ancestry, effects of, 126-128.
_See_ Heredity.
Anger, as one underlying motive in punishment, 12; the cause of killings, 83.
Animal, man a predatory, 94-100.
Animal life, man’s origin and development the same as that of other, 29-34. “Anti-social,” significance of term, 5-6. Art, satisfaction of emotions by, 55.
Automobile, effect of the, on crime, 208-211.
Beauty, appeal of, to man’s emotional side, 55. Bible, vengeance as purpose of punishment shown by, 13-14. Boys, development of criminals from, 58-64, 75-80; sex crimes among, 90-91;
and the automobile lure, 210-211.
Buckle, H. T., “History of Civilization,” cited, 102-103. Burglar, development of a, 58-60, 62, 92-93. Burglary, crime of, 92-93.
Capital punishment, question of, 166-171. Chance, man as subject to element of, 255-262. Children, as criminals, 75-80;
sex crimes among, 90;
rights of property unknown to, 107. Christianity, Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan regarding, 225-228. Christians, belief of early, in punishment as vengeance, 14-19. Cities, relative prevalence of crime in, 75-79, 207-208; crimes against property in, 99.
Civilization, limitations built up around heredity by, 42-43; growth of crime coincident with growth of, 203-211; the road to decay, 211-212;
does not mean the humanizing of men, 228-229; new evils and new complexities with each new, 229. Confidence game in obtaining property, law against, 137. Conscience, as a guide to conduct, 4-5, 109. Conspiracy, statute concerning, 136-137. Convicts, in prison and after 120-123, 230-232; good found in, 181.
Courts, growth in number and kind of, 139. Crime, defined, 1-11;
purpose of punishment of, 12-27;
failure of punishment as a deterrent from, 21-24; need for better understanding of, by the public, 27; responsibility for, 28-36;
part played by heredity and environment in, 36; among women, 71-74;
of homicide, 81-87;
due to sex relations, 88-91;
of robbery and burglary, 92-93;
performed against property, 101-108; question of increase in, 134-142;
industrialism and, 203-208;
increase of, due to the automobile, 208-211; war and, 213-220;
disease, accident, and, 250-254;
elements of luck and chance as related to, 255-262; remedies for, 273-285.
Criminal, scope of word, 1-6;
one who violates “folk-ways” of his community, 6-9; purpose of punishment of the, 12-27;
need for better understanding of, 27; reasons for existence of, 56-70;
the female, 71-74;
the juvenile, 75-80;
attitude of the, 109-115;
the law and the, 116-129;
effect on others of punishment of, 158-160; stigmata of, 172-177;
the good in the, 178-182;
pardon, parole, and placing on probation of, 263-272. Criminal conduct, psychology of, 44-55.
Dante, the hell of, 15.
Death penalty, methods of inflicting, 163. Defectives, discussion of the, 183 ff.;
in prisons, 184-185;
proposed isolation or sterilization of, 233-249. Disease, treatment of crime contrasted with that of, 139-140, 154, 230-232;
crime, accidents, and, 250-253.
Doctors, employment of, in trials, as experts, 143-149. Dugdale, R.L., study of “The Jukes” by, 244-248.
Education, a response to suggestion, 65; importance of, to the child, 77-78;
of the subnormal and the backward, 237. Edwards, Jonathan, view held by, of punishment as vengeance, 17-19. Emerson, R. W., on non-obedience to law, 114. Emotions, factor of, in human action, 46-55; lack of satisfaction of, in American scheme of things, 55. England, system of justice in, 281.
Environment, man the product of heredity and, 34-36; relation of heredity and, 37-40;
adjustment of, to heredity, 41-43, 277-278; relation of, to development of criminal, 57-69; effects of, 201-202;
necessity of improving, shown by studies of the Jukes and the Kallikaks, 244-249.
Experts, medical, in courts, 143-149.
Factory system, growth of cities due to, 76; and crime, 203-212;
Fear, emotion of, in man, 46-47;
instilling of, an object of punishment, 165. Feeble-minded, distinguishing between the normal and, 185-188. _See_ Defectives.
Feuds, family, 12.
Flight, instinct of, in man, 46-47. Folk-ways, crime defined as violation of, 6-7; enforcement of, by primitive man, 8;
present-day laws descended from, 28; are still a guide to man, 99-100.
Forgers, development of, 66-68.
Freedom of speech, loss of, as result of World War, 220.
Gang, the boy’s, 79.
Genius, a frequent indication of insanity, 239. Girls, protected life of, as compared with boys, 72; sex crimes among, 90-91.
Glands, the ductless, and their use, 33-34, 38, 174. Grant, General, on repealing of bad law, 130. Grasset, Joseph, “The Semi-Insane and the Semi-Responsible,” cited, 239. Gregariousness, instinct of, in man, 47-48, 50.
Hatred, punishment actuated by, 12-19; killings traceable to, 83.
Heredity, view of man as the product of environment and, 34-36; relation of environment and, 37-40;
problem of future, to adjust environment to, 41-43, 277-278; responsibility of, for the criminal, 57-65; child criminal as result of, 78-79;
accounting for accused men’s actions by, 126-129; effects of, 201-202;
laws of, not sufficiently known to justify sterilization, 237-238. Homicide, the crime of, 81-87.
Ignorance, disease due to, 252.
Illinois, operation of parole law in, 267 Incest, crime of, 89-90.
Indeterminate sentence, the, 268-271, 278. Industrialism and crime, 76, 203-212.
Insane, restraint of, a measure of self-protection, 26; treatment of, 144;
in prisons, 184-185;
allowances for, in criminal codes, 187-190; legal tests of, not logical or humane, 190-192. Instinct, human action largely governed by, 44-54; stress placed on, as motive power of life, 81-83. Intelligence tests, use of, 185-186.
Intolerance, a persisting source of evil, 228-229. Isolation of the subnormal, 233-249.
Jealousy, crime traceable to, 84-85.
Jesus, doctrine of vengeance repudiated by, 13-14. Judges, attitude of, 282-283.
Jukes family, study of the, 244-248; wrong deductions from, 248-249.
Juries, attitude of, toward women criminals, 72, 73, 85; decision as to sanity of defendants left to, 144; abolition of, proposed by some, 282;
better chances for the common man with, 283. Juvenile Courts, 59, 139.
Juvenile Prison, the, 59.
Kallikak family, results of environment rather than heredity shown by, 249. Kidnapping, death penalty sometimes advocated for, 156. Killings. _See_ Homicide.
Kleptomania, a form of insanity, 191-192.
Labor, manual, and its poor pay, 69;
training for manual, in schools, 69-70. Law, a codification of a custom, 8;
and its infraction, 110-114;
the criminal and the, 116-129;
repealing of, 130-133;
shortening and simplification of codes of, 278. Laws, feeling against so-called property, 112. Legislation, restrictive, resulting from World War, 220. Legislatures, fixing of punishments by, 155-156. Lockouts, crimes resulting from, 102.
Lombroso, C, discarded theory of, 172. Luck, element of, as affecting man, 255-262.
Man, origin and development of, like that of other animal life, 29-34; the product of heredity and environment, 34-36; as a predatory animal, 94-100;
the outlook for, 274.
Milton, the hell of, 15.
Mind, operations of the, clouded in mystery, 24; seat of, in whole physical organism, 174. Money-getting, brain power not involved in, 51-54; crimes due to passion for, 104-105.
Murder, not a profession like burglary or other crimes, 62; by robbers and burglars, 93.
Music, satisfaction of emotions by, 55.
Negroes, disregard of laws pertaining to, 132.
Pacifism, a dream, 218-219.
Panics, strikes following on, 102.
Pardons, granting of, to criminals, 263-272. Parole, release of prisoners on, 265-272. Parole boards, 22;
responsibilities of, 266-272;
need of, for honesty, intelligence, and thorough equipment for work, 278-279.
Parole laws, 218-219.
Pick-pocket, development of the, 60-62. Pliny, letter of, quoted, 225-228.
Poverty, relation between crime and, 101-102, 172, 176-177; of men charged with crime, 120.
Prisoners, situation of, 120-123;
proposed remedial measures affecting, 273-282. Prisons, reformation not accomplished in, 20-21. gradual improvement in, 163-164.
Probation, system of, 271-272.
Prohibition laws, 138;
effect of, on crime, 197-198;
Property, crimes against, 97-99;
normal results of civilization, 100; discussion and analysis of, 101-108.
Pugnacity, instinct of, in man, 47, 48. Punishment, purpose of, 12 ff.;
hatred and vengeance as moving purposes of, 12-19; reformation viewed as aim of, 19-21;
as a deterrent from crime, 21-24;
impossibility of justifying, by any reasoning, 25-27; determining correct basis of fixing, 150-157; effects of too drastic, 156-157;
results of, to others than the subject, 158-160; evolution of, 161-165;
capital, 166-171;
viewed as cruelty, not as a remedial measure, 275.
Rape, crime of, 88-89, 91.
Reason, slight effect of, on actions of men, 44-55. Reformation, viewed as purpose of punishment 19-21; impossibility of moral, of man, 276-277. Religion, emotional life supplied by 54-55; in early times, subjects for criminal code furnished by, 161-163; criminal code created with growth of, 223-224. Repulsion, instinct of, in man, 47.
“Revelations of St. Peter,” quotation from, 14-17. Revenge. _See_ Vengeance.
Revenue laws, common violation of, 132. Revolutionists, position of, 114.
Robbery, crime of, 92-93.
Sabbath observance, disregard of laws concerning, 132. Self-protection, a justification of imprisonment, 25. Sentences of prisoners, basis of fixing, 156-157; indeterminate, 268-271, 278.
Sentimentalism, defense of, 168-169. Sex instinct in man, 45, 48-49;
jealousy and revenge caused by, 84-85; crimes resulting from, 88-91.
Shoplifting, kleptomania and, 191-192. Social control, theory of, 136;
discussion of, 193-202.
Spanish Inquisition, ravages of the, 224. Sterilization of the defective, 233-249. Stigmata of the criminal, 172-177.
Strikes, crimes following on, 102.
Suggestion, power of, on human mind, 24, 65. Sumner, W.G., “Folkways” by, 131.
Taboos, adoption of, by primitive man, 7-8. Tests, physical, of prisoners, 176-177;
intelligence, for grading mentality of the backward, 185-186. Trajan, correspondence between Pliny and, 225-228.
Vengeance, origin in, of idea of punishment, 12-19; punishment inflicted solely for, not as remedial measure, 275.
War, encroachments on liberty during, 114-115; effect of, on crime, 213-220.
Weather, relation between crime and, 250. Westermarck, E.A., “History of Human Marriage,” cited, 89. Witchcraft, hangings for, 224.
Women, as criminals, 71-74;
shoplifting by, 191-192.
World War, underlying cause of, 106; encroachments on liberty during, 115;
increase in crime since close of, 214-217; spirit of super-patriotism a result of, 219-220; restrictive legislation due to, 220.
Young, care of the, resulting from mother-instinct, 45-46.