In the last chapter it was shown that capital punishment sought for its justification in the theory that certain criminals had assumed an attitude of permanent and aggressive hostility towards society. Their presence in society is regarded as a menace to human life, and no moral improvement is expected to result from their imprisonment. So hopeless is this class of criminal regarded as being that, so it is declared, no other policy save that of extermination can be considered.
In primitive society criminals were less numerous than in our own time; but those that did then exist belonged, almost all of them, to the worst type. There being no public institutions for the administration of justice, practically one course only remained open, and that was, that the person wronged should seek to avenge himself as best he could, and the death of the wrong-doer was generally the satisfaction that he sought. As civilization has advanced, criminals have become more numerous; but they have taken to crime by more gradual steps. Society, too, has deprived the individual of the right of wreaking his own vengeance, and has erected institutions for the purpose of determining guilt and apportioning punishment. From the days of Noah, deeds of blood and other crimes of a serious nature, have been punished by death and from then, until this present day, the one idea underlying the administration of justice has been that society should get rid of its criminals as speedily as possible. Repression alone was thought to be efficacious, reformation was scarcely thought of.
Of late years the criminal has been more carefully studied by his fellow-beings. Some have studied him as a monster and believed him to have the heart of a beast; others have studied him as a man and had faith in his possibilities. The former have noticed the failure of repressive methods, such as flogging and other penal severities, and have in despair been led to advocate that the only possible remedy is that of extermination. The latter have discovered that the failure of these repressive methods but imposes upon society the obligation of adopting a system of an entirely different order and with an entirely different object, viz: a system for the reformation of the criminal.
The "exterminators" have studied the criminal objectively and have had regard to his crimes only; the reformers have studied him subjectively and have had regard to his possibilities. The policy of the "exterminators" must be condemned on this ground, viz: that they have made but a half study of their subject, and they do know, and they refuse to listen to, of what the criminal is capable. Neither do they estimate the capacity of the enormous social power that may be attached to the criminal's own, but feeble, effort so as to raise him up, even from the deepest depths of vice and villainy. The careful subjective study—the truly humane study—of the criminal, has shown that all theories which would declare any man to be incapable of improvement, are to be condemned absolutely. The possibilities of reform exist in every case, and the probabilities are never to be denied. None can gainsay this statement nor can it be termed extravagant, for with the imperfect machinery now in use results are being attained which justify every syllable of it. Yet in the face of these results, the "exterminators" still proclaim their policy. They bid us be deaf to the voice of prejudice and follow the true light of science, ever remembering that we are passing through a wonderful stage in social evolution! But the policy that they adopt belies that which is indicated in all this fine talk. They say that we must exterminate the criminal, and this is nothing less than an acknowledgement that, to their minds, the problem of the criminal is one of outer darkness and that we have no means of ever penetrating it. They would take us back to a period anterior to Adam.
Prejudice, indeed, needs to be overcome, but it is the prejudice that prefers vengeance to mercy. And if we follow the true light of science it will lead us to discover that the criminal is best got rid of by converting him into a useful citizen, or to be more exact, society's best effort is to be directed towards separating the crime from the criminal.
Recently a Wellington medical gentleman (Dr Chapple) published a work entitled "The Fertility of the Unfit." The problem which this gentleman attempts to grapple with in his book is the disproportionate rate of increase among the numbers of the unfit to the fit members of society. Under the classification of the unfit he places all those persons who, on account of mental, moral or physical defect, constitute a burden to society. These are, principally, the epileptic, the pauper, the insane and the criminal. These either will not, or cannot support themselves adequately and legitimately. For their treatment support and correction, hospitals, asylums, charitable aid boards, gaols and other institutions have had to be established, and the upkeep of these has become a great burden which necessarily has to be borne by the healthy, moral and industrious section of the community.
Dr Chapple draws attention to the undeniable fact that there is a tendency on the part of those unfit to increase at a greater ratio than the fit. The rate of increase during the past twenty years has been so great and so disproportionate as to make the cost of their maintenance become an increasingly heavier one for the individual taxpayer to bear, and to cause for this and other reasons, a considerable amount of alarm in the minds of those who have the welfare of society at heart.
The Doctor believes that the cause of this proportionate rate of increase is to be found in the methods adopted largely among certain classes for the prevention of child-birth.
In the conclusion of his book he states that sexual inhibition on the part of the better classes accounts for their smaller rate of increase as compared with the rate of the inferior classes. We cannot accept this conclusion without more evidence. We want to know definitely whether the natural rate of increase among the better classes is really lower than that existing among the inferior classes. That is to say, are the ranks of the defective being swelled by the influence of heredity or by some extensive force recruiting from among the ranks of the fit? Another question is this: Since the use of preventives is available to both sections alike, the Doctor accounts for the supposed natural disproportion by assuming that the better classes restrain themselves. Is he right? Using the word "restrain" in its absolute sense we beg leave for most emphatic doubt. In an enquiry such as this is, the only factor of any real importance as accounting for a diminished birth-rate, is the use of preventives. If this method is confined to the better classes, we must refuse to call them any longer our "best stock," for, if they are not producing a defective offspring, they are, as the recent Australian Birth-Rate Commission has made abundantly plain, speedily making defectives of themselves, besides being guilty of lowering the social moral tone and hardening its sensibility. We are strongly of the opinion that the diminished birth-rate does not account for the increase in the number of criminals and defectives further than that the use of preventives discloses a species of criminality.
Nevertheless, Dr Chapple proposes, not so much to restore the equilibrium as to get rid of the defective altogether. He assumes that defectives are born and not made, and then makes enquiry into the best possible means for the prevention of their birth. After passing several methods in review, he accepts an operation known as tubo-ligature as being the best from all points of view. This operation will render the female permanently sterile without having any deleterious effect upon her health. Absolutely no result follows, he assures us, but sterility. If the wives of all defectives were operated upon in this way, Dr Chapple assures us that the problem concerning the defective would speedily be solved and society would be the happier and wealthier in every way. The proposal might give something of a shock to the moral conscience but such a shock would only unfit us for our work. The criminal is upon us, he threatens us, and we must protect ourselves. The necessities of the case are so pressing and so urgent that we seek for the most effectual remedy and use it unhesitatingly when we have found it. Here it is, says Dr Chapple, and its morality is determined by the relief which it, and it alone, is able to bring.