“But Judge Lindsey upheld the woman, saying: ‘I had noticed her before. As my eye wandered during the evening it had fallen several times on her, crouched there among the back benches, and I remember I thought how 137 like a cave dweller she looked. I didn’t connect her with the case, any case. I didn’t think of her in any human relationship whatever. For that matter, I hadn’t considered the larceny case in any human way. And there’s the point: I was a judge, judging ‘cases’ according to the ‘law,’ till the cave dweller’s mother-cry startled me into humanity. It was an awful cry, a terrible sight, and I was stunned. I looked at the prisoner again, but with new eyes now, and I saw the boy, an Italian boy. A thief? No. A bad boy? Perhaps, but not a lost criminal.
“‘I called him back, and I had the old woman brought before me. Comforting and quieting her, I talked with the two together, as mother and son this time, and I found that they had a home. It made me shudder. I had been about to send that boy to a prison among criminals when he had a home and a mother to go to. And that was the law! The fact that that boy had a good home; the circumstances which led him to––not steal, but ‘swipe’ something; the likelihood of his not doing it again––these were ‘evidence’ pertinent, nay, vital, to his case.
“‘Yet the law did not require the production of such evidence. The law? Justice? I stopped the machinery of justice to pull that boy out of its grinders. But he was guilty; what was to be done with him? I didn’t know. I said I would take care of him myself, but I didn’t know what I meant to do, except to visit him and his mother at their home. And I did visit them, often, and––well, we––his mother and I, with the boy helping––we 138 saved the boy, and today he is a fine young fellow, industrious, self-respecting, and a friend of the Court.’”
So deep was the impression that this case made upon Judge Lindsey that he could not keep from thinking about it. As he thought, he made up his mind that boys and girls should not be tried in the same court with grown people. He also concluded that in trying a boy the important thing was not what he had done, but why he had done it. To discover and remove the cause of the crime was of much greater importance than punishing him after the crime had been committed.
Furthermore, he thought it very wrong to put a boy in a prison with hardened criminals. He looked upon the prison not as a place where men are made better but as a school of vice. To send a boy to prison, then, must be the last resort.
While it was not hard for Judge Lindsey to see all these things, it was difficult indeed for him to make the people of Denver see them. Gradually, however, he carried on his campaign of enlightenment until today Denver is pointed out as one of a few cities that knows how successfully to handle its boys. With its excellent juvenile court and its sane probation laws it has blazed the path for other cities to follow.
And to whom are these changes due? We answer, to the man who by dint of hard work struggled all the way from newsboy on the streets to judge on the bench––Ben B. Lindsey.