The San Francisco call., 1908-11-27
By DIR. Wallace A. Briggs

Concerning the conversion of seri-
Gus liability TO a valuable asset Koch
and Won Behring, equally eminent au-
thorties hold. in one respect, diamet-
rically opposite views-Koch maintain
ing that human tuberculosis is prac-
tically never, Won Behring that il is
practically always. of bovine origin.
This question is of vast significance.
economic as Well as sanitary. If Koch
is right. the sanitarian may ignore bO-
vine tuberculosis. if Won Behring is
right, he must acquiesce in its neces-
sity.
An early and definite settlement of
this question is earnestly sought by
both economists and sanitarians. Such
p solution. however. with the means
now in the hands of the medical pro-
fession and sanctioned by present eth
ical standards, is impossible. Such a
solution requires experimentation on
human beings. Can such experiments
tion be made TO conform to the dictates
OF an enlightened conscience, public as
well as medical2 Yes.
In the state Of California many men
and women have been convicted of
capital crimes. OF these. some were
sentenced TO life Imprisonment and
others TO the gaIlows. These lives, for
feited to the law, instead of being sacri-
feed as they now are, could be made
10 serve a most useful purpose by a
simple amendment Of our criminal laws
without 5eopardizing their efficiency,
without outraging the public con-
science. without violating the sacred
obligations Of the medical profession
these lives may be dedicated to science
and humanity.
TWO WAYS POSSIBLE
This may be done in either one Of
two ways:
]. BY law authorizing the governor
10 postpone execution in the case of
such criminals condemned TO death as
submit to experimentation prescribed
by the state board OF health. and after
such experimentation to the satisfac-
tion of said board, to commute sentence
10 imprisonment for life.
.. BY a law permitting certain Grim
insls condemned to death by hanging
or sentenced TO life Imprisonment, to
offer themselves for experimentation at
the hands of the state board of health
What are the possible objections to
such a laW2
l. The punishment is cruel. It is in
human.
To this there are several answers.
(a) The experimentation proposed is
not a punishment and is not intended
q punishment. It is something pro-
posed in lieu Of punishment, which. in
2 measure, viii permit the converted
criminal to eXpiate his offense by valu-
able contribution to the welfare of So
ciety, and II that be possible to rein
state himself cOrrespondingly in his
selfrespect.
Cb) The experimentation in and of
itself would not be cruel ordinarily 1t
would hardly be painful, otherwise it
WOulQ DC QOu6 uAQGI duGSLnGSld. IN us
results II could often be negative. and
when positive its results would be no
more distressing than disease always is.
(cl The criminal himself would
hardly regard as cruel that alienation
which would save him from death by
hanging. The proposed law contem-
plates no compulsion. It leaves the
condemned criminal free to make his
own choice. If he prefers experiment
tation in the service of mankind per-
5aps. as some slight expiation OF his
offense, would it not be cruel to deprive
him Of this last solace of his con-
science?
ALTERATION OFFERED
? IT would be in contravention of
the constitution Of the state in that
the punishment is cruel and unusual
] have shown that the proposed expert
mentation is not punitive in either its
not a punishment. 1t is simply an alter
nation of punishment. foregoing Of
the extreme penalty Of the law in con-
sideration Of valuable services rendered
to the state, just as a communication, re-
prieve or even pardon IS often granted
FOR services rendered by a convict in
p prison break or in an attack on
prison officers.
3. In the minds of the criminal
classes il would diminish the terror
Of the law In convictions for murder
in the first degree the jury under the
present law imposes either life i'm
prisonment or the death penalty. If
the governor, instead of the jury were
10 exercise this discretionary power
in what way would the terroTs of the
law be diminished2
On the contrary. they would rather
be increased. For under the proposed
law the governor would commute the
death sentence to life Imprisonment in
elected cases only and then not until
the convict had undergone a number.
perhaps a large number. of expert
ments. in other words. the convict for
murder in the first degree who escapes
the death penalty under the present
law gets life Imprisonment only.
whereas. under the proposed law he
would get life Imprisonment plus ex-
periments tions- Moreover, IN my
opinion, the proposed amendment would
tend TO diminish the difficulties of trial
by jury.
10 be granted in proper cases by a
higher authority would diminish in the
minds Of many the most serious objec-
fions to jury service in capital cases
Rnd would facilitate agreement in a
verdict Of murder in the first degree.