The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-03-02

kind Of crimes depend more or less on the
economic organization of society. Crimes
against property, for instance, must neces-
sarily stand in certain relation to the de-
velopment CT the institution of property
In given state of society, the facility
or difficulty of acquiring II and the differ
ences between rich and poor, possible in
that society. But If a certain economic
organization of society produces crimes of
certain kind and in certain number,
with what degree of justice can this same
sciety punish these crimes?
/ will, for the sake of shortness. grant
without further argument the power to
discern between good and evil, right and
wrong. But power to discern and power
to choose are not the same thing. Tenn
permanent strength of passion and impulse,
and power of resistance or will-power are
not things that man creates in himself
out of his own free will: they part of
his being. The nature of the passions and
impulses. and, / may add, the will to re-
slst them. are the products of natural and
social conditions; the degree of their
strength, however. is a condition itself.
A man may fully understand that that
carry on soul-tearing struggle with his
passion and impulse, yet he may do the
wrong, not because he will il, but because
his will power is weaker than his passion.
MS power or resistance not strong enough
TO master his impulse. Is that his fault?
is he the maker of his will power? We
must not confuse will and will power /
can 1ully understand that a man like Knapp
commits murder without knowing any rea-
son for ii, without hatred malice, but
with full knowledge that he does wrong. 1t
would be nonsense to say that such man
acts out of his own free will. To punish a
man for what he does, not of his own free
will. but under the overpowering influence
of an irresistible force within him, or with
out him, is not justice.
L abstain from discussing the subject of
free will from the theological standpoint.
That the idea of free human will is alb
solutely irreconcilable with the belief i'm the
existence of all-knowing and all-power-
full God, knowing everything beforehand,
and having power to prevent it. God with
out whose will not sparrow can fall from
the roof. seems to me too clear for discus
sion. With such a belief. the belief in pre-
destination Is fully in harmony, but not the
theory of free human agency.
Certainly the man with criminal propensi-
ties, the intellectually and morally abnor-
NAL man, is dangerous to society. 1t is
necessary that society protect itself against
him. DR.. Herne discovered the criminal
propensities at glance upon Knapp's pic
ture. 1t seems to me that, with the aid of
science, 1t should not be impossible for So
ciety to protect itself even against the first
crime of naturally constituted criminal
without fear of doing an injustice If this
solution.
1t appears to me that society is much bet
ter protected by the confinement of a man
who commits a small crime, but whose
criminal propensities are apparent and
whose physical abnormities betray an alb
normal mental and moral condition, than
a
fellow-man under peculiar circumstances,
who may perhaps never harm another man
and who may never have an opportunity to
act under similar circumstances.
But instead of protecting society, we re-
venge the crime. With all our boosted CIV
ilZation we act upon the principle of an eye
inal laws are in a certain degree lex
talionis. We make distinction between
grand and petit larceny in the measure of
punishment Yet whether the one the
other is committed. is most generally only a
matter of opportunity.
A man shoots at another. After the pull
ing of the trigger the course of the bullet
is beyond the mans control. Yet the ex-
tent of punishment depends on the course
of the bullet, or that which the doer of
the act cannot control We punish not
the act, but the result of it. Why, be-
cause intend to revenge the crime, not
to protect society. Protection in our sys-
TEN of criminal Jurisprudence comes in
only as a matter of incident.
For thousands of years mankind, and
what Is called human justice, has revenged
crime, but has absolutely failed to pre-
vent it and protect society. It's existence
to-day in all its horrors of former times
proves that revenge does not protect. Nine
teen hundred years of Christian revenge
and many thousands of years of social re-
venge have not been able to wipe out
crime. L hope that some day science will
give us that protection against crime
which neither theology nor craftsmanship
nor Jurisprudence were far able to pro-
duce. PHILIP RAPPAPORT
Indianapolis, Feb. IS.