The Saint Paul globe., 1903-11-08
TWO THEORIES.

TWO THEORIES.
/ Two essentially contradictory theo-
ries Of the relation of the community
to the criminal are set forth in recent
public statements by experts more or
less directly interested in the control OF
the criminal and the defective classes.
One of them reasserts the old PROPOSE
ton that crime is simply disease and
should be treated az such. He sees no
reason why a criminal should be sent
| to prison on any other terms than
| those that carry a patient to hosp1-
tai. Care and treatment for the 10
| Gated disease, and discharge only on
reasonable belief of permanent cure
are the requirements. The other au-
| thority is, startled by the increase Of
| crime, and asserts that the state would
be doing it's duty better if it were to
reverse the policy of increasing Glenn
| ency, and judiciaIly execute large
portion Of those whose worthless lives
| it now guards.
It is not easy for any community to
! fix the point between the two extremes
where the safest and humanest public
policy lies. We know that it was in
| human, and we are also sure that it
was impolitic, to hang people indis-
criminately, as they did in the old
| days, on conviction of any one of some
hundreds of petty offenses. That sys-
| tenn can never be restored. 1t was not
only an iron cruelty toward the Of
| fender, but it encouraged criminal
| tendencies to reclzlessness by leaving
! no possibility Of increased penalty and
just as well be as bad as he could
when the consequences to him were all
the same.
On the other hand, we have been
| drifting toward a more or less mawk
ish view of the punishment Of crime
that is even more dangerous to society
and to the state. The disease theory,
while essentially correct, is response
bic largely for this. 1t is one that can
| be applied too rigidly and too much in
| detail. The reluctance to taking hu-
man life by legal processes has been
growing. The movement against CAPT.
| tai punishment has been enlarged. Still
more fatal is the general refusal Of
the escape of notorious criminals to
resume their warfare against law and
society.
The effect of this undue leniency is
perhaps worse than that of undue Sc
verify. 1t not only removes the deter
rent to crime by promising immunity,
but it breaks down in the minds of the
public the main distinctions between
right and wrong. Things that the state
and the citizen in his public capacity
regard as tri1ing and venial, when 1t
| comes to fixing punishments, are not
| held in the same adherence that they
are where punishments are heavy and
vigorously applied. There is not
humane ideas in the treatment Of
| criminals has carried us nearly to or
across the danger line in this respect
| As for one particular class of GRIM
\
inals, it will probably be necessary for
the state to revise or greatly modify
it's immemorial policy. We refer to
those who are called mentally ire
sponsible. The theory of the legal ire
sponsibility of criminal found men
tally defective belongs to a g-past
age, when the only object of punish
ment was vengeance. Laws and courts
and gallows and racks and thumb
| screws existed not to prevent future
offense SO much as to make the past
offender pay full toll in bodily and
! mental agony for his guilt. OF course
there was no sense in submitting a per-
son mentally irresponsible to this
process. You could not get out of him
the full tribute for his crime.
We have perpetuated the method of
treatment long after the system to
which it belonged was modified
Neither as a punishment nor as a de-
| terrent, but as reforming influence
are the penalties of law now generally
regarded. But you cannot reform the
incurably insane. There is no sound
theory on which the life of a person
afflicted with homicidal mania can be
sacred or ought to be preserved. II he
is incurable, the only safety is to keep
him shut up until nature puts an end
to his physical life. That is no gain
to him, and the community takes
chances of his possible escape or the
slaughter Of his keepers. If he is pro-