New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-11
History of Jukes Family.

tony De viewed as a punishment ~ "a
so, is il both cruel and unusual?
History of Jukes Family
My answer TO the first question would
be that 1t does not fall within the deHhi-
ton of punishment 1t does not pur-
port to be a punishment, but mereli an
act to protect society against an aG nit
ted evil. to wit, the transmission ID de-
scendants of inherited tendencies ", .ch,
having been found detrimental to so, ETY.
in the ancestor are reasonably certain To
be equally injurious TO society In the ie-
scendants. and an injury in an ever wldih-
ing circle (as, for example, the Juhes
family. The injury to society inflicted
by the descendants of such families as
the Jukes is probably far greater than
any benefit which the world has ever had
from its Julius Caesars, its Napoleon
Bonapartes or as some people may think,
its T. r. s"
The Jukes family, to which Mr.. LcaIitt
had reference, has been carefully uaceu
through five generations by Dugdale. VI
700 members of this family, 10 were con
victed Of crime, $50 were paupers and beg
CARS and over one-half the females were
prostitutes.
But the Legislature. under the guise
Of a measure for the public good con-
tinued Mr.. Leavitt, Cannot inhict even
punishment for crime which is both cruel
and unusual. Let il be noted that the
constitutional inhibition is not against
cruel punishments and unusual punish
ments. To be unconstitutional punish
ment must be both cruel and unusual
What can be more cruel than to hang or
eleCtrocute a man? Execution. for muir
der, having been usual for many centu-
ries. It is not unconstitutional On the
other hand, as civilization advances In
experience there may be unusual punish
ments, which, however eXpedient, can be
prescribed II they are not cruel.
Now, as the medical men assure US
that vasectomy is entirely painless, IT is
obvious that, however unusual, II cannot
be called cruel, unless it be cruelty TO
impose upon a man the consciousness
throughout his life that he can never
have any children. This Is a psychology
cal question which should be determined
by experts in psychology before it can be
passed on in courts Of law.
Psychological Question involved.
"As a psychological question it might
have to be decided by experience by
careful study OF the results Of the opera
ton in individual cases. Until II Is found
by such an examination, carried on dur
ing a course of years, that conscious
ness Of inability TO beget children OPP
crates upon the health or character Of
person in a detrimental way, a court Of
law might well hesitate to decide that 1t
is not cruel. Thus. such law might at
present be held to be unconstitutional for
the reason suggested, whereas in few
years. and as the result OF an investiga-
ton that no such detrimental results fol-
low from such an operation, 1t could then
be upheld as entirely within the constitu-
tional powers Of the Legislature
Charles A. Boston, who is member Of
the committee of the State Bar Associa-
ton, of which Mr.. Leavitt IS chairman,
though he did not care to discuss the
merits Of the New York law because OF
his unfamiliarity with its provisions, at
tackled all legislation Of the kind IS un-
wise, II not unconstitutional Not so long
ago Mr. Boston told the American So
ciety of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis
what he thought of the sterilization laws
on the statute books of the different
states, those antedating the enactment Of
the New York measure. lie expressed
the opinion again last night that such of
a. nanal-fhat ia fhngA
which prescribed sterilization as pun
ishment for o crime-were undoubtedly
unconstitutional, and that those lava
which did not prescribe IT as punish
ment but as a measure for the pretended
good Of society, though probably consti-
tutional, were unwise.
The penal laws he considered unconsu-
tutional because sterilization he consid-
cred a Cruel and unusual" punishment
within the meaning Of the constitutional
prohibition. The other sterilization laws
he considered unwise. because in enactlng
them the legislatures took for granted
what biology had failed yet to determine,
namely, that criminal tendencies were
transmitted from father 10 son.
inheritance or environment.
He was convinced himself, he said, that
crime was not the result Of Inheritance
but of environment, and when IT came 10
a question of mental effectiveness he
thought Il highly debatable whether
tendency toward decisions could be in
herited. The only safe sterilization law,
10 his mind would be one restricted to
congenital idiots and these, he pointed
out, had such few opportunities to pro-
create that such a law was unnecessary.
The most dangerous of the laws now in
force which might be considered consti
tutional, Mr.. Boston thought, was the
Indiana law. 1t left the determination Of
who should be steriliZed, he said, TO the
board OF managers. warden and attend
ing physician of a prison, for instance,
the physician being the one TO perform
the operations, at 50 each.