The Treatment of Criminals in Relation to Science.

By H. K. Rusden.

[Read before the Royal Society of Victoria, 11th November, 1872.]

The proper method of disposing of criminals is a subject upon which there appeal's to be as great a diversity of opinion, as any with which I am acquainted. If the best plan has ever been proposed, it would seem to have found small favour; for I know of none—whether practised or not—which is not widely and loudly condemned, not excepting even those most in vogue. Some persons still advocate flogging and hanging; others exclaim at such expedients with horror, as being not only wrong, but brutal, and also ineffective as deterrents. Some, with Mr. Carlyle, would swiftly sweep from the universe the Devil's regiments of the line. Others find more joy in trying—however ineffectually—to bring one sinner to repentance, than in giving countenance and assistance to thousands of other men who need everything but repentance. Some are for doing more or less than justice to the criminals; some few to their victims—past and future; some few regard the claims of society; but in what justice to any of them consists scarcely two persons agree. I believe that this variety of opinion arises from want of clear perception of the nature of crime and of criminals, and of the relations of society to both. Most of those who are best acquainted with the subject—agree,—that there is a large and more or less distinct class of persons, who by birth, education, habit, and therefore inclination, subsist entirely—or mainly—by crime; by systematically preying upon their neighbour's property, generally with small care whether their neighbour's lives become involved in its acquisition. It appears that though occasional accessions from without are received by this class, they are actually trifling in number, and comparatively easy to deal with; it does not seem that the ranks of crime would thus be permanently augmented, but for the association with the criminal class which the adoption of such a career necessarily involves. On these points the evidence of experts page 4 is consistent, as a rule;^* but one of the leading psychologists of the day traces all such cases of apparent aberration from a moral type, either to hereditary taint or physical lesion.^†

The broad assertion frequently made, that members of the criminal class can readily be recognised at a glance by an acute officer, is scarcely eligible as a basis of action. A very remarkable statement, however, made by one of the highest authorities on the subject, is worthy of the gravest attention. Mr. Fredk. Hill (for many years Inspector of Prisons in England and Scotland), in his valuable work on "Crime," gives as the result of his long experience and statistical knowledge (p. 55), that "nothing has been more clearly "shown than that crime is to a considerable extent "hereditary." And he further says (p. 56), "If all the "criminals in the present generation could be collected and "placed in confinement—the young to be cured, and the old "to pass the remainder of their days under control, the next "generation would probably contain but few thieves." And he continues, "One of the most serious evils perhaps of the "system of short confinements is, that it allows the "perpetuation of a race of criminals. So long as a man is in "prison, he cannot at any rate become the father of future "offenders; and as the greatest number of crimes is com-"mitted at that age at which the passions are most violent, "this consideration is a further and important reason for "long and unbroken periods of confinement." Report for 1836, p. 23. A most important statement, which Mr. Hill proceeds to corroborate with statistical proof. But even Mr. Hill scarcely appears adequately to recognise the entire scope and significance of the evidence he adduces to support it. He shows that the actual number of criminals bears to the number of crimes constantly committed a very much smaller proportion than is commonly supposed; that the large majority of offences is committed by criminals who have been imprisoned

^* See F. Hill "On Crime." M. D. Hill "On the Eepression of Crime." Dr. J. Brace Thomson's "Psychology of Criminals," in the Journal of Mental Science, Oct. 1870. Quarterly Review "The Police of London," July 1870, &c.

^† Dr. Maudsley's address before the Psychological Section of the British Medical Association, Lancet, August 10th, 1872. In justice to myself, I must state that with the single exception of the above allusion, any coincidence between my paper and Dr. Maudsley's invaluable address, is purely accidental. This paper was prepared for the meeting of the Royal Society of Victoria on the 14th October, and Dr. Maudsley's address was not received in Melbourne until the following mail.

page 5 and released; that thousands of crimes are committed by one criminal, and that the loss to the community by his depredations amounts to many thousands of pounds. And this is not only probable, but inevitable, if his theory is correct. If there is a large number of persons whose profession is crime, it must be of almost constant commission; and as is otherwise probable, the crimes unreported and perhaps unsuspected, bear a large proportion to those detected or even known. A single party of Manchester pickpockets is estimated to have cost England more than £26,000 (p. 59).

Mr. Hill speaks of the imprisonment for life of all our criminals at once, as very desirable, though scarcely practicable; and appears to regard the state of public opinion as a more insuperable difficulty than even the cost of their arrest and maintenance. The first obstacle must, I think, give way, if it be only plainly and often enough shown that the balance of results would be clearly and largely good. And if a criminal cost much more in plunder, surveillance, detection, conviction, and occasional imprisonment, than he would in detention for life; the latter course must clearly be the most economical. The diminished expense for detections and convictions in the future should not be omitted from the calculation. And even if ten times the present expenditure were found to be necessary for gaols at first, a large economy would thus inevitably result; while far more important objects would also be attained; namely, the increased security to society of life and property; the fewer accessions to the criminal class from evil example and association; and the certain check to the propagation of criminal children. This, as the most perfect of all preventives, is an object of such transcendent importance, as should counterbalance many weighty objections, did such exist. But prevention has always been subordinated to cure, and to cure of the most imperfect and impossible description; instead of being adopted as itself the most perfect cure of all.

But it seems more than doubtful whether any extra expense would be involved for gaols—even at first. "No unreformed inmates of a prison," says Mr. M. D. Hill (Repression of Crime, p. 465), "however extravagant "its expenditure, cost the community so much as they "would do—if at large. This fact has been so often "proved that I must be allowed to assume it as un-"deniable." It has been estimated that a criminal page 6 at large costs three or four times as much as when perpetually imprisoned.^* But even if the cost should be found to increase a little, that little would inevitably soon decrease; and before I conclude, I shall propose an expedient by which the cost—and every other real disadvantage—would be reduced to a minimum, while incalculable benefits would demonstrably result to the community, both physically and morally.

The broad proposition—that no convicted criminal should ever be released, is one which can scarcely be expected to gain ready acceptance on its first proposal; though I look upon its ultimate adoption as certain. The wisest and most beneficent suggestions have always met with strenuous opposition at first, and have never been cordially adopted, until the objectors discovered that the ends they themselves had most at heart, were actually being best effected in spite of their opposition. Man, however, never learns anything—except under compulsion. Few will contest that of all economic subjects, this is one—the solution of which is of the first importance, or that it has yet to be found; and fewer still will fail to recognise that the moral aspects of the question are more important still.

The present state of things is notoriously unsatisfactory, but the full extent of the mischief produced can scarcely be apprehended, for it is of daily increasing proportions. A worse than foreign enemy is maintained by us in our midst, and favoured with every advantage that our civilisation can furnish. We endow the criminal—known or unknown—with every protection from the ministers of the law which is accorded to the honest citizen, and actually assume that he has not done what we know he has done, until a certain method of proof has been fulfilled; and any loophole that a clever lawyer can find, is made effectual to save him from the legal consequences. But if—by force of circumstances, a conviction follow, the consequences tend rather to confirm him in his evil career, and perfect him in his profession. He lives as before, at the cost of his honest neighbours, with medical and every other attendance free; the most select of the society he prizes most, and no more work than is exactly calculated to keep him in health. He is far better fed, housed, and cared for, than many honest labourers;^† and

^* See p. 502, quotation from Weekly Dispatch, 14th October, 1855.

^† See Argus (supplement), 16th October, 1872, as regards the prison dietary scale in America. Also, Mayhew's London Labour and London Poor, (to which I have lost an important reference) as regards the Dietary Scale in England. Also at Munich, and Valencia, see Repression of Crime, pp. 552 and 556, &c.

page 7 he not only knows it, but proves by returning to it as soon as possible, that he appreciates it. But this is not all. Exactly in proportion to his reward for his crime, is the . discouragement to the honest labourer, who cannot but be made too well aware of the difference in their fortunes on every fresh liberation of the protected idler, to whose support he knows he has to contribute ! The only wonder is that crime is not more general than it is.

I would define a criminal as one whose acts are habitually predatory, and in contravention of the laws which protect property and person. If a criminal act were shown to be incongruous with the character and previous habits of the perpetrator, I would not call him a criminal; but if his criminal act were shown to accord with his habits and disposition, I would at once class him as a criminal upon his first conviction. A second conviction should be taken as decisive—as to criminal habit and disposition under any circumstances. One criminal act may not prove a habit or disposition; but its recurrence is proof of a liability which must augment with repetition. A habit is only a more advanced stage of the same course. But habits are formed and confirmed under ordinary conditions of life; and there can hardly be a more glaring or mischievous fallacy than the supposition, that conduct produced by the discipline, and exhibited within the precincts of a gaol, will probably be maintained under opposite conditions outside it, and in the face of habits which were the outcome of previous longer life, and which are stronger in proportion. "Can the "Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots ? Then "may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." (Jer. xiii. 23.) Experience and statistics combine to prove the strict truth of this wise saying, and that it is impossible to make good citizens out of confirmed bad ones. In fact, they must be Transformed physically, before moral reform can be possible. Every tree is known by its fruits, and good deeds should no more be expected from bad men, than grapes from thorns, or tenderness from tigers. Vice to the vicious, and crime to the criminal, are as natural as heredity, habit, and association can make them; and if their subjects are temporarily susceptible under certain conditions to corrective influences, they are inevitably more so to the page 8 predeterminations of inheritance and habit, when the conditions are renewed under which they were originally developed. Every individual is as much an example of the Persistence of Force, as is any other object in the universe. The force of habit is as certain and necessary as that of gravity. And this is admittedly a fact, proved by the statistics of crime, so far as they have been investigated. In Dr. J. Bruce Thomson's article on the "Psychology of Criminals" in the Journal of Mental Science (Oct. 1870, p. 343), he says : "They seem not amenable to moral treat-"ment. All the appliances of chaplains and teachers, with all "the discipline of prison legislation, are not known to turn "any from the error of their ways. The criminal goes out "of and into prison many times, and the hopeless imbecile "is not reformed if a professional criminal. Such are set "at large, after short sentences, to my seeming, with as "much judgment as guided the Knight of La Mancha, "when he in his morbid philanthropy set at liberty the "wild galley slaves going to punishment. I have asked "all the principal governors of [gaols in] Scotland, if "they can point to a converted thief, but they never "knew an habitual thief, man or woman, who became "honest and industrious. A distinguished writer, who has, "as he says, looked more criminals in the face than any man in "Scotland, and has well studied their characteristics, says—"as to reforming old thieves—find me the man who has made "an honest working man out of an old thief, and I'd next set "him about turning old foxes into housedogs. The feat is "impossible." Mr. M. D. Hill, in his work already quoted, gives ample reasons for entirely distrusting the so-called statistics of reformed criminals, (pp. 589—594.) In fact, reliable statistics on the subject are impossible; for no test applied to a criminal when under gaol discipline, is of any value as regards his conduct when beyond it;^* and the conditions of test imply a surveillance, more or less

^* Lord Stanley, on the 12th Jan., 1857, said : "Moreover, the men who were the best behaved in prison, were often the worst behaved out of prison—and for this reason, that they were the men who were most susceptible to any influences whether good or bad, which were brought to bear upon them. The man who was docile to good influences, was apt to show himself equally docile when placed in contact with his old companions." See Repression of Crime, pp. 631-2. See also pp. 563, 586 to 594, 615-6, 655-8, 693, &c. &c. I quote Lord Stanley as a man who did not speak without being well informed on the subject, as well as because he has given the reason convincingly.

page 9 equivalent to that discipline. But the statistics of reconvictions are reliable, as far as they go; and experience, so far as certain, agrees with the theory that criminals cannot really reform, and that therefore they never do. In fact, if a man guilty of crime were by any possibility to become a worthy member of society, that would only prove that he was never really a criminal; that is, that his criminal act was not habitual or characteristic. But supposing it possible that a small per centage of genuine criminals could reform without relapse. Should the very doubtful chance of the reform of one criminal weigh for a moment against the imminent risk, not only of his not really reforming, but also of his influencing for evil—not one, but many—hitherto innocent members of society, to become criminal like himself ?

But even were all this otherwise, or doubtful,—society is no more called upon to show consideration or tenderness to criminals, or to try—to its own prejudice—to change their nature, than it is bound to tame every tiger, or civilize every serpent. As Mr. F. Hill remarks, the "humanity of the "English law is in fact, inhumanity both to society, and to "the criminal himself." Doubtless it may be plausibly urged that a criminal is but the product of circumstances, with the determination of which he has actually less to do than society itself; and therefore that the Justice which Mr. Carlyle invokes upon him, would really exempt him from punishment altogether. But though the premiss is certainly true, the conclusion is absolutely false. Though society may be spoken of as a kind of personality—in so far as it has a power of acting, its personality is constantly changing, and it certainly is not to blame for the shortcomings of its previous personalities in past epochs. It can do no more than act for the best in present circumstances; and cannot do so better than by marking in the most practical and emphatic manner possible, the full breadth of the radical distinction between good and evil—right and wrong—so far as it has attained—so slowly and painfully—to the knowledge of it. All other kinds of knowledge are surely worthless in comparison; but the value of this is practically depreciated and ignored by every man who fails to pronounce and establish it to the full extent to which he has the opportunity. This is a duty—which, it appears to me, is fully as incumbent upon society, as upon the individual, if not more so. Yet this is where both the page 10 individual and society constantly fail, and hence I believe, the slow progress which morality really makes.

One of the most surprising things in connection with the subject is, the small practical sympathy shown for the victims of criminals. To judge by the sympathy commonly exhibited, we might imagine that men in general regard the probability of their becoming criminals themselves, as much greater, than that of their being made the victims of criminals. Although punishment is administered to the criminal far too much in the spirit of revenge, from a sense of "wild justice," as Bacon calls it, and is arbitrarily measured by some idea of impossible quantitative proportion to the turpitude of the offence—instead of simply by the probabilities of its repetition—the " wild justice " is very rarely extended to the unfortunate victim. How rarely is compensation afforded to the victim of robbery or personal violence of any kind! The criminal—once caught—appears to exhaust public attention and sympathy. Would not public funds be more justly appropriated to pensioning the victim of a brutal rape, than in maintaining her ravisher in ease and idleness ? Though not prepared to advocate state compensation to the victims of the depredations or violence of criminals generally, I believe it would be difficult to disprove the Justice of such a proposal; as crime takes place solely by the failure of society to maintain the sufferers in that security, which is surely the tacit condition of good behaviour. Why do not those who talk so much of justice, seek to apply it here ? But they do not. And I do not,—but why? Because utility is the only rational basis of human action. And while the criminal classes remain at large, they would manage to get the bulk of the compensation as well as the plunder. Futile attempts at imperfect justice have always resulted not only in injustice, but also in enormously evil consequences, which weigh far more heavily on the worthy than on the unworthy members of society. It is therefore incumbent on society—and it is also expedient for it—to recognise the claims of prospective victims; rather than as at present, to its own and their detriment, to devote its whole attention and expenditure to the amelioration of the condition of the criminal.

Theoretical principles of nearly every form corroborate the view, that consideration for the criminal should be subordinated to the interest of society. Whether we adopt the admirable saying of Buckle, that the perfection of government page 11 is the maximum of security with the minimum of interference; or Bentham's criterion of the greatest happiness of the greatest number; or the more widely acknowledged authority, which may be said to lay down that it is expedient that one. man should die for the people; we are equally warranted in coming to the same conclusion, that a criminal—a proved criminal—should never again have the opportunity of injuring a worthy member of society. For that one possible victim to the mischievous propensities of the criminal, is obviously entitled to more consideration and protection than the criminal himself; besides which, though one person may by a bare possibility be the sole victim; not only is that rarely the case, but the security of all is jeopardised and infringed.

Mr. Carlyle, however, enounces a remarkable theory. He asserts that Justice should be executed upon the two-legged human wolf as a palpable messenger of Satan. But his view of justice extends no further than the act for which he invokes revenge ! But has not the "merely ill-situated pitiable man" a claim, and a prior one to be avenged ? For his urgent temptation, his unconsciously acquired evil habits, his worse associations and worst ignorance, his undesired birth in degradation, his inheritance of iniquity and passion ? Why should he, rather than Mr. Carlyle—have been born to vice and its hopeless uncompensated consequences, in conditions which would have equally shapen in iniquity his scornful contemners ? Surely justice should regard causes as well as effects, and withhold both hate and blame from those who, with different antecedents, would have been different men ?

But the rectification of antecedents is an impossibility, and Society should therefore relinquish the vain chimera of justice, the opportunity for which has irrevocably past; and should devote its whole attention to the modification of consequences, so as, out of the present possibilities, to evolve the greatest future good. Is not a weighty obligation laid upon its all to do so, in virtue of those superior conditions which we so undeservedly enjoy, and which have made us what we are ? Is it justice to hate and revenge, in conditions which justice would actually exchange ? Should we not rather exercise our unearned prerogative of position with scrupulous care, as those to whom the future of the human race is temporarily entrusted, to produce the best possible conditions for our successors ? When Mr. Carlyle claims, page 12 as a child of God, a right—and asserts it to be his duty to put an end to those whom he styles "palpable messengers of Satan,"—does the old adage occur to him, that it is a wise child that knows its own father ? Like causes produce like effects. Would not the same causes which made one—a palpable messenger of Satan—have done the same for the supposed child of God, and vice, versa ? If not, can there be any ground for belief in causation at all ? And if divine paternity made the difference, where is the justice of the distinction made ? It is excluded. Justice then forms no valid ground for the punishment of any criminal whatsoever. Justice is an impossibility without a reversal of the past. The idea of punishment also, should therefore be discarded; particularly as it is per se a mere barbarity devoid of good result (unless as a feeble deterrent to others), and essentially unjust in principle. We can at best only so act in the present, as to educe good and avoid evil in the future.

Another very important consideration should lead us to the same conclusion at which I have arrived on other grounds,—that a criminal should never be released. It is characteristic of the criminal classes, that they are both unscrupulous and improvident, and set at nought the restrictions which society imposes upon the numerical increase of morally-disposed persons. An enormous impediment to the moral progress of the people would be at once removed, were convicted criminals never liberated to propagate their evil kind; the honest poor would be so far relieved from competition—at an immense disadvantage—with others who scruple not to avail themselves of means of subsistence from which honesty excludes; a part more or less—of the burden of foundling and reformatory asylums would be saved to society; the proportion of uneducated—or rather miseducated—children would be largely reduced; and the first direct step probably in the history of the world would have been taken to improve, or rather to stay the deterioration of the race of human beings. For it must be obvious that if those below the general average of morality and intelligence multiply—as we know they do—far more rapidly and promiscuously than those above it, the tendency must be to lower the general average. And that tendency is enormously enhanced by the consequently increased competition, against which the honest poor have to contend in living, and in educating their children. And the highest page 13 authorities agree, not only that the majority of criminals are the children of criminals, but also that the large majority of the children of criminals become criminals themselves. And this is only what might naturally be expected by those who believe in cause and effect. It is inevitable—by that law of the persistence of force, which is as much the explanation of habit as the cause of heredity. And for all these reasons a criminal by habit should never be released under any circumstances.

The increased security to Society generally,—the rescue from injury and depredation of those who would otherwise be victims,—the banishment from society of constant evil examples,—the prevention of the production of a large number of evil children; these are advantages which are obvious, and can scarcely be over-estimated. The disadvantages appear to be all embraced in the one item of the cost of maintenance. But it seems doubtful whether that would not actually be reduced, even if all convicted criminals were incarcerated for life. I have already quoted the weighty opinion of the Recorder of Birmingham to that effect, and it is obviously true of those prisons in America and elsewhere, which are (said to be) self-supporting. But it must not be forgotten that it is precisely in such institutions that the life conditions of the criminal are made entirely superior to those of the honest labourer with whom he is made to compete, and whom, in a place like England, he thus helps to starve. Prison labour, if made remunerative, is thus doubly objectionable, and the cost of maintenance should be considered irrespective of the results of the prisoner's labour. But even then the increase of criminals by example and propagation would be checked, and the total number of criminals would therefore certainly diminish. The cost of police, now mainly engaged in watching and re-catching released criminals, might be safely reduced, so as probably to more than compensate for any extra expense in gaols.

And as regards the criminals themselves, the most plausible objection appears to me to be, that perpetual imprisonment would operate too much as a premium to crime, if they were to be maintained in conditions (as at present) vastly superior to those of the honest labourer. For this cruel and pernicious anomaly, a remedy should then be found, and I have one to propose. The maudlin nonsense that we hear about the loss of precious liberty is altogether page 14 out of place, and would be unworthy of a moment's consideration, but that there Are morbid sentimentalists who constantly repeat it. But liberty is prized by the active and industrious, not by the idle and lazy. The simple incontestible fact that our thieves and forgers, as a rule, repeat their offences as soon as they regain their liberty, proves that they really appreciate their comfortable quarters, their gratuitous medical and other attendance, their food and exercise carefully regulated to maintain them in perfect health; and above all, the consciousness that their life in clover is at the expense of the honest labourer and taxpayer. Deprivation of liberty would be a punishment to an active mind and body, to a person to whom work is pleasure, and to whom debt, dependence, degradation, and depredation are equally repugnant. But criminals prove by their acts that they prefer gaol-life to freedom (M. D. Hill, p. 523-4); for they regularly adopt, as soon as liberated, the very means which experience has taught them are the most certain to secure their return to it. The only plausible argument to the contrary is, that attempts are sometimes made to escape. But these are notoriously rare exceptions, and arise from a love, less of liberty than of license, and hatred of social restraint rather than desire for free action; and these attempts to escape, admittedly prove extra intractability and impatience of social obligation. No attempts are made to escape from Munich or Valencia prisons.

Though perpetual imprisonment would prevent convicted criminals from contaminating Society, and propagating criminals, after their conviction, it is still open to grave objections. For the honest starving poor who contribute to their support should not be so mistaught that crime will entitle them to State maintenance and solve all their difficulties; and if criminals were made by their labour to pay for their keep, they would so far compete with honest labour, which would thus be placed at a disadvantage, though entitled to preference for any employment or expenditure. It therefore remains to be shown that there is a sure means both of preventing an increase of the expense of maintaining criminals and of avoiding, at the same time, the slightest appearance of offering to them or to others the premium to commit crime, which are the defects of the system of perpetual imprisonment. If, in attaining perfectly these ends, my proposal can be proved to present also the means of acquiring know- page 15 ledge of the most important character, unattainable otherwise, and which would confer unprecedented benefits upon the human race generally, it is difficult to see what more could reasonably be desired. Nevertheless, I undertake to fulfil all these conditions, and also leave no room for the common complaint of competition with honest labour. More than this, my expedient has already been tried on a small scale, and with perfect success.^*

In the English Cyclopædia, under the head of "Inoculation," it is stated that that preventive of a deadly disease was very slowly adopted in England, after its introduction from Turkey in 1721, by Lady Mary Wortley Montague, "and it was not until after it had been practised on six "criminals (whose liberty was promised to them if they "recovered, which they fortunately [!] did) that it was "generally received." My proposal is, to adopt this expedient and apply it generally; not, of course, to inoculate our criminals with small-pox, still less to liberate them afterwards; but to utilise as subjects for physiological, medical, and surgical experiment, all our criminals without exception. They should be divided into, say three classes; of which the first might be simply made subjects of experiments in diet, or in the trial of the effects of drugs of such a character as to produce the least inconvenience or pain, and extending over long or short periods. The second class might be used for experiments of a more critical or important character—if, indeed, any experiments involving such results as the improved health, longevity, and morals of the human race should be called other than important. The last class should be reserved for experiments in which

^* Sir G. C. Lewis says, that "by vivisection, important physiological facts have been established. Some of the ancient physicians of the Dogmatic sect were permitted by the kings to open the living bodies of convicted criminals, a practice which was defended against the objections of the Empiric sect, upon the ground that it is reasonable for a few criminals to suffer for the benefit of many innocent men. In modern times, likewise, the practice of inoculating criminals with the matter of the plague, for the purpose of throwing light upon contagion, has been recommended if not practised; and it appears that the French Government used in the 16th Century, to furnish annually to the physicians of Montpellier a living criminal for dissection." Sir G. C. Lewis takes this statement at second hand, and throws some doubt upon it, by adding in a note, that he has been unable to verify it by reference to the original author. See Sir G. C. Lewis' Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, vol. i., pp. 162-3.

It is well-known that much modern knowledge has been acquired by experiments on the living subject, and could not have been otherwise attained. And it appears that they have been much more freely practised in Germany and France than in England.

page 16 life might be risked or taken. But the "welfare of society in the advancement of medical and physiological knowledge should always form the prime consideration, and every other should be entirely subordinated to the scientific perfection of the experiments. No unnecessary pain should be inflicted; in fact, it would be generally indispensable to avoid it by means of anaesthetics. But even without their use, I confidently appeal to competent physiologists to say whether a capital surgical operation, in sound tissues, causes nearly as much actual pain as one ordinary gaol flogging;—a mere revengeful barbarity—which is barren of all good results that would not be far better and more amply attained by my proposal. Judges and juries would have solely and simply to determine the class to which any particular criminal should be assigned; and a felon of the deepest dye might thus be privileged to become the means of conferring unequalled benefits upon the human race. In the selection of subjects, I should, however, be inclined to allow the skilled experimenters as much latitude as the exigencies of science might demand or suggest, if subjects of experiment were required for any particular purpose. Every organ and function of the human body might thus be brought under direct observation and scientific experiment far more completely and advantageously than in the case of Alexis St. Martin.^*

All the objections to my proposal that I have been able to foresee are, the apparent inhumanity involved in its execution, and the alleged defect of moral right to put it in practice. For if there could be any question as to the deterrent effects of the plan, or the transcendent importance of instituting experiments upon the living human subject, I think those points may be best examined when I consider the advantages to be attained.

And first as to the inhumanity. I not only deny, but report the charge. The fact is, that Mr. Hill's remark, already quoted, that humanity to criminals is inhumanity to society, is strictly applicable to the case; and the real difference between my position and that of my possible opponents is, that I prefer to exhibit my sympathy and humanity towards the unfortunate Mary Egans, Sullivans, Grahams, and Eltons, &c.; towards the innocent victims, than towards their criminal ravishers and murderers. I feel that as a member of Society

^* See "Will the Coming Man Drink Wine ? "—Atlantic Monthly Magazine, 1868.

page 17 which distinctly owed the protection and security, which it failed to afford to those helpless women in their dreadful need, I am bound to acquit myself of the responsibility which I certainly share, and this paper is my contribution to that end. If I have opponents, let them recognise that they are not only defenders of such villains as Sanders, Branch, Elton, Ritson, and Weechurch, &c., but their rewarders, and the accessories before the fact of the like crimes and outrages, if not participators in them, in the future.

But I extend my sympathy and humanity to millions besides the victims of robbery, murder, and rape. Millions of innocent sufferers from excruciating diseases of every description will have good hopes of release from their pangs by means of the rapid increase (which the proposed system is calculated to produce) in medical knowledge, which has hitherto languished under disabilities almost equivalent to prohibition. I can even discern a possible solution of the gigantic evil of poverty, which afflicts so heavily a large proportion of our fellow creatures, and dooms their progeny to inevitable ignorance, and probably to crime. Are we to show no humanity to these innocent victims of our social errors, but exhaust it upon those who, by their own act, have cancelled their title to consideration. And is it even a wrong to them, to make them, or rather to confer on them the privilege of being, against their wishes, of inestimable use to the Society they have wronged ? The special aims of my proposition are to expand and exalt human sympathy, and to concentrate it upon the most legitimate objects.

The right of Society to act generally for the decided benefit of its aggregate body, is ordinarily admitted to be beyond question. As regards the taking of life, the right, I think, has been more rarely questioned, than the policy of Society in doing so, and thereby conducing indirectly to the acquittal of the guilty. The last is of course not a defect of the law, but of its administration; and the general diffusion of knowledge seems its only legitimate cure. The abstract right to take life is a transcendental point, which should be dealt with on its own grounds. The possession of the power may be logically maintained to constitute the right. Power indisputably vindicates natural right in every other case beside that of man; and in human action it does the same where no injury is inflicted elsewhere. The question then becomes; page 18 Is it right that to benefit society, an evil should be inflicted by it upon an individual ? This is conceded freely when that evil amounts to no more than a small fine, or a temporary deprivation of liberty; and now the question is narrowed to one of proportion. Now the estimate of the value of a human life is altogether arbitrary, and if anyone likes to assort that per se it is so precious that nothing can be put in competition with it, we can only oppose our opinion to his. But should he condescend to reason on the subject, weighty arguments may be adduced to the contrary. The fact that thousands risk and sacrifice their own lives for the most trivial of objects may prove no more than their opinion, but opinions are as good on that side as the other. It may also be said that human life, like everything else, where very redundant, must have a smaller value. But waiving that, death being the inevitable lot of all, what is taken is an uncertain number of veal's or days of life. The value of these years or days may be estimated in two ways; the good work done, or the pleasure experienced. The first of these would be amply satisfied by my proposition, which, I contend, provides for unsurpassable good to the human race. And as to the pleasure of the individual, that has an ample off-set in the pleasure taken from others; in the direct injury to some, and the lessened security of all. The consideration of the evil lives into which many are led by the greater prospect of impunity, should I think bear preponderant weight. But I have already given ample reasons why the interest of one unworthy, or even worthy, member of society should be subordinated to the interest of its aggregate body and posterity.

But as regards the right or justice of taking the life of a criminal; I may safely assume that my transcendental objector must grant that, for reasons already given, it is absolutely impossible for any human being to ascertain in what justice would consist, or to estimate only approximately the due weight to be allowed for inheritance of evil disposition, education, and provocation. But his premises are also understood to involve that in the next world perfect justice can and will be meted out to him. Therefore, the surest way to act justly to a criminal, is to leave the account of justice to be equitably balanced there, and despatch him with all convenient speed to where that consummation is to be achieved. On these principles—consistently applied—to inflict any punishment, as such, but death, is to incur the page 19 risk of committing an injustice; and to despatch a criminal forthwith, is the surest way to avoid inflicting an excess of evil. But as any defect of justice is to he so speedily rectified elsewhere, it becomes a minor question, if any, whether the evil we inflict, for the purpose of effecting a great good, be in excess or defect of justice; and we need feel no compunction or hesitation on the subjeet, if we simply fulfil upon the criminal, our own plain duty to society and posterity; confident that our criminal will infallibly receive the exact balance of good or evil which may be his due, as soon as we shall have done so. It is evident further that on the same principle we need not fear error on the side of severity in doubtful cases; but may confidently act for the good of society, even at the otherwise possible risk of sacrificing an innocent person. And we should thus abolish an admittedly most prolific source of the miscarriage of justice, and of the encouragement of crime; and at once explode that really stupid saying, that it is better that ten guilty should escape, than that one innocent should suffer. The fact is, that death being inevitable, the suffering is altogether assumed, being far less than that endured by the majority of honest men who die in their beds; and that it is clearly better for society and morality, that ten innocent persons should suffer, if only apparently guilty, than that one guilty one should escape. For the execution of a supposed guilty person—though innocent—should deter others as much as if he were really guilty, and is therefore good for society; while to let one guilty man escape is to teach possible impunity and immorality to all. To those who demur to this conclusion, I will merely propose a comparison of the popular penal system, which, as I have represented it, implies that it is good that many innocent should suffer for the benefit of one guilty,—with a fundamental principle of the popular religion, which implies that it is good that one innocent should suffer for the benefit of many guilty,—and with my conclusion that it is good that one guilty should suffer for the benefit of many innocent; and I challenge a candid and thoughtful decision.

These reasons are of course superfluous for those who recognise the clear right of society to dispose of criminals with sole regard to its own purification and good; and in fact for all but those to whose objections they specially apply. But it is necessary to meet, by anticipation, every objection which it seems likely will be made.

The first advantage arising from my proposal, is, that it is eminently, nay, pre-eminently calculated to operate as a deterrent. If those who are least likely themselves ever to become subjects to it, view my plan with horror—which I am prepared to believe—how much more will those do so who are the special objects of it ? From my own knowledge of the criminal class, I suspect that this horror is likely to be enormously exaggerated. But I think the prospect of being made really and specially useful to society, would appal the worst of them quite as much.

Secondly. By never releasing a convict, which is a part of my proposal, the reproduction of criminals, either by association and example, or by direct propagation, would be prevented. This is. I think, no more than the plain duty of Society towards its as yet uncontaminated but weak members. But the non-production of evil children—not so much for their own sakes (though that good should not be overlooked) as for the general improvement of the race and the security of the great body of society—is a good which can scarcely be over-estimated, and is beyond calculation, extending as it would into the remotest future.

Thirdly. These objects, important as they are, scarcely, if at all, surpass the incalculable benefits which would accrue to the human race by the great, and perhaps, first impetus to medical and physiological knowledge which would be the direct result. The present condition of medical knowledge is notoriously miserably deficient, and it is no compliment to the profession to say that people outside it know less. It has been, I think, an entirely mistaken policy of the profession, how much so ever forced upon it by circumstances, to shelter its own ignorance behind a technical terminology, and otherwise to maintain the monopoly of its poor apology for knowledge. By keeping patients, and thousands who otherwise would be patients, in such outer darkness, I believe that it has narrowed its own sphere of observation and research to the smallest limits, and deprived itself of much of that knowledge which is its greatest want. Had it not always as a body persisted in this suicidal course, originally adopted, doubtless, solely in self-defence, it might not have suffered as it has under prohibitions and disabilities which from time immemorial have been legally and conventionally imposed upon its education. Had legislators and others been aware that their own comfort, health, and longevity lost enormously by page 21 the professional ignorance of medicine and physiology, they would, perhaps, have discerned the absurdity and self-destruction involved in making it penal for a doctor to have a human body in his possession for purposes of experiment, while also making it penal that he should not understand his business. Yet such was, I believe, the case till within the last 40 years.^*

Did men ever yet obtain real systematic knowledge otherwise than by experiment ? Yet doctors are, and always have been, specially debarred from that best means of learning their business, and of benefitting the world; and it has only been by stealth, at considerable personal risk, and by circumventing the laws and Society itself, that some indomitable earnest workers have learned the very little that is known. The existence of homoeopathy in the face of allopathy demonstrates that the fundamental principles of medicine are in doubt and uncertainty, to say nothing of the thousand points of detail, upon which opinions are divided. The notorious fact, also, that leading allopathists of Melbourne actually practice, by means of spiritual mediums and clairvoyants, is a sad proof of the insufficiency of ordinary means of diagnosis and methods of treatment. It is, I think, impossible to estimate the nevertheless certain prospective benefits., or to exaggerate the value to humanity of the scientific experiments which' I propose—whether for acquiring accurate knowledge of the more obscure functions of the human body, the perfecting of capital surgical operations, the discovery, testing, and utilization of drugs of every description, or the solution of various most important physiological problems. Several of the most eminent members of the medical profession here fully endorse my views on this point. The popular mind will probably best recognise the importance of the proposal, in considering the instance that I have quoted in which it has already been practised in England. Inoculation was the first check to the then appalling ravages of small-pox, and prepared the way for the discovery of vaccination, which has since super-seded it. The historical fact that the popular mind was at once convinced and satisfied by the experiment in that case is my ground of encouragement in reviving the proposal after a dormancy of 150 years, and advocating its wide extension. It is to me a guarantee that my recommendation

^* See English Cyclopædia, Art. Anatomy.

page 22 will yet commend itself to the common sense of the people, and that it has only to he fairly tried once, to ensure its ultimate and permanent adoption throughout the world.

It is almost amusing to think how very foolishly Society defeats its own purposes in its conduct towards the medical profession. It lays down that doctors shall not experiment. If any ordinary person suspected for a moment that his medical attendant was experimenting upon Him, he would never see his face again. With what difficulty has the comparatively worthless privilege of obtaining a dead body for dissection, to learn scarcely anything beyond mere anatomy, been wrung from the stupid prejudices and superstitions of the people ? How can the living expect to benefit by experiments, unless upon the living? It should surely be obvious that to learn with certainty the effects of drugs upon the living body, experiments with them upon the living body are indispensable. But that would be too shocking ! And what is the result ? That every one of US who employs a doctor to attend himself, his wife, or his child, actually furnishes a subject, and too often a victim, of ignorant, blind, and uninstructive experiment in his own person or that of one of his family ! Instead of enabling certain knowledge to be acquired as I suggest, by careful and conclusive experiment upon persons who voluntarily (when they know it as the legal penalty of crime) offer themselves for it! For a doctor cannot experiment profitably upon his ordinary patients, because he cannot be sure that the conditions he prescribes are carried into effect; he generally has reason to suspect that they are not. Even in a hospital (his only school at present) experiments must be strictly limited to the demands of the cases before him, and are so slightly more profitable than ordinary practice, that almost the sole advantage is, that he can have some certainty as to the conditions under which they are made. But in practice, because we stupidly prohibit perfect experiments upon persons who are good for nothing else, we actually subject ourselves to experiments of an imperfect, unprofitable, and even dangerous description !

Although experiments upon animals may have been useful, they are well known to be wholly inadequate to secure reliable knowledge of the susceptibilities of the human subject. In fact, it is fortunate that this is known. For as it is now certain that doses of various drugs, which would kill a man, are perfectly inocuous to many animals, it would page 23 obviously be dangerous and foolish to rely upon any experiments, but those made upon the human subject. There can be no doubt that innumerable and perhaps valuable lives have been sacrificed for want of them. The value of true experiments for the purpose of understanding the nature of epidemics and checking their progress is so obvious, that as I have said, resort has already been had to them; but unfortunately with a halting doubt that it was right to do so, instead of with full confidence in it as the wisest measure that ever was adopted. But I confidently appeal to the profession to testify to the inestimable value of such experiments.

A fourth advantage is the enormous reduction of cost in the final disposal of criminals which would obviously result; as all the worst criminals would be utilised for experiments, involving so much risk or certainty of death, as would speedily reduce their numbers. I believe that the present cost of disposing of criminals would be reduced far more than fifty per cent, and that the supply of subjects for experiment would soon fall far short of the demand.

It has occurred to me that it may be thought that 1 have neglected or overlooked the question of Reform of Criminals, but I have touched upon it; and I admit that, just after reading the accounts of the noble institutions for that purpose at Munich, Valencia, &c., any proposition in which they are entirely ignored must appear cruel and unjust. But the fact is, that greater cruelty and flagrant wrong are unintentionally done by those very institutions; and not to persons who deserve evil at our hands, but to innocent strugglers who are entitled to protection from contamination and encouragement in virtue. The honest poor have in the first place a preferent claim to the expenditure itself. They have another, not to be exposed to the competition of prison labour. They have also a claim not to be taught that crime is rewarded with large expenditure, good food, lodging, and attendance, with freedom from care; while struggling poverty meets not only with anxiety, misery, and starvation; but with demonstration that by depredation and violence they may reverse their evil condition. It is as if you gave to the burglar the wages due to your honest servant, and informed your servant that he and his family must want, because what was his due might be the means of reforming the burglar, adding that he should follow the burglar's example. But, as I have said, the estimates of reformation have been page 24 proved to be altogether fallacious; and it is a demonstrated fact that those who appear, when under control, the most reformed, are, when beyond it, often the worst offenders. But whether you release them or not, while you thus spend thousands upon thieves and felons,—men, women, and children are literally worked to starvation in the next street, and die of want and disease, because they do not rob and murder! But even all this is nothing to the cruel wrong involved in the immoral lesson thus deliberately taught, that vice meets with the reward of virtue, and virtue with what should be that of vice.

I believe I have now shown that the ideas of justice and punishment should both be discarded as futile and worse than useless in dealing with this question; and that reformation is, if not impossible, at least rare and incapable of timely test or proof; that the permanent incarceration of criminals would be a far better protection to society, present and future, than the current penal system; that it must necessarily tend to reduce crime to a minimum; that the cost would probably be much less than might be supposed; and that it would even furnish the means of effecting a direct and certain moral improvement in the human race. And I trust that I have also shown that the utilisation of criminals for scientific experiments would reduce the cost of perpetual incarceration of all criminals to a smaller amount than any other plan without exception; that it would operate as the most powerful of all deterrents from crime, and thus obviate the principal objection to all self-supporting or life imprisonments; that it would give an impetus to medical science which must speedily have a beneficent effect upon the health, comfort, longevity, and, still better, the morals of mankind; that it satisfies every want, extinguishes every anomaly, and solves every difficulty in the great problem of the disposal of criminals; and finally, that the charge of inhumanity recoils at once upon those who raise that objection, as their sympathies should be with—not the criminal—but his innocent victim.