the condition of color-blindness is incurable. And so, too, it will not be denied that a moral sense, along with intellectual capacity, may in spite of our best efforts remain entirely absent in idiots, and be but feebly discernible in certain imbeciles. But it appears very difficult for people generally to believe that an individual may have a fair, or even high, degree of intelligence and yet be an idiot of a special kind—a person with a brain so defective in a special realm that the corresponding function of moral sense is impossible-a moral idiot. Yet this doctrine now rests invincibly upon mental physiology and pathology. To the degree, then, that the examination into the moral capacity of these Elmira criminals has been trustworthy, to that degree may we affirm the hopelessness of true reform for 31.8 per cent.-the lowest grade of moral idiots, and the mere possibility of true reform for 39.5 per centlikewise moral idiots, but of a grade somewhat less low.

Respecting the majority of the Elmira criminals, it appears that their intelligence is amply sufficient to account for an apparent reformation, but for a true reformation their moral endowment is utterly inadequate. Says Herbert Spencer: "Creeds pasted upon the mind, good principles learnt by rote, lessons in right and wrong, will not eradicate vicious propensities; though people, in spite of their experience as parents and citizens, persist in hoping they will."

It may be said that this apparent reformation is not only much better than none, but that while it

continues, the former criminal may be no more hurtful to society than many an individual whose good name has never been attainted. This may be true, yet on the other hand, the potential danger of the criminal is intensified, because masked. At all events, the important fact remains undoubted that there are certain criminals whom our best reformatories cannot truly reform-probably a much larger number than would be generally admitted-and further, that those who undergo an apparent reformation may, at any time, decide that their new course does not pay and, thereupon, revert to the old paths of crime. Still more-even when the pseudo-reformation lasts throughout life, the former criminal generally bears with him a capacity to perpetuate the vicious stock from which he has usually sprung. In the case of the criminal incapable of true reform, we may feel morally sure that he has come of a degenerate line, and that if he have offspring some measure of his innate viciousness will be transmitted.

With a certain percentage of criminals, then, our best efforts fail to reform; and if, after a period of training and seclusion, they be let loose upon society, they will return to their old life of wickedness, and multiply their kind.

For the preservation of society as against these hardened offenders, many procedures have been suggested, but the one receiving the most enlightened approval appears to be that of perpetual detention.' This plan, however, for the detention of

1 The surgical operation enthusiastically advocated, from time to

a large mass of the very worst men alone has not yet been tried, and we have strong grounds for believing that it is impracticable. These incorrigible criminals are implacable enemies of society: where shall we place them that we may be secure against their untiring malevolence? That they should be removed from civilized lands to some remote corner of the earth can no longer be advised, after the transportation experience of England, France, Italy, and Russia. They must, apparently, be kept with us. The number of these incorrigibles is very great, and when we receive them into their places of detention, they will not constitute a shifting population such as we have in other prisons, but the multitude received must remain until death, their number being constantly reinforced by new arrivals. The number and size of the prisons which these people will require are appalling. The cost of these expensive structures, and of the feeding and clothing of the many inmates,-there being but little return in the way of work from men unwilling and incorrigible, the wages of so great a number of keepers, and the withdrawal of these from the ranks time, as the appropriate penalty for such offenders, I cannot approve. I. As a deterrent, I believe that it would have no greater efficacy than certain other penalties, for the reason that criminals are generally less capable than even the average man of profiting by the painful experiences of their fellows. 2. The operation would not reform, could not be repeated, and for the subsequent control of the criminal we should have to depend upon the methods now in vogue. 3. The procedure seems less humane than the death-penalty, because it would entail in many cases a cruel and lasting sense of shame— which we should not desire unless vengeance were our aim, while in others it would induce insanity.

of wealth-producers, would together make of the plan, to the public mind, a thing most unacceptable.

In our present prisons, the great majority of the inmates look forward to a time of release, and, realizing that this will be deferred by bad behavior, they have a motive for self-control; in the case where none have this outlook, where all are conscienceless, where all know that while they live their wills must bend before those of the masters appointed by society, and where every means has already failed to check depraved and dangerous tendencies, we should anticipate a pandemonium, unless very cruel measures of repression were constantly used.' Already, we often find that when a criminal has been put in a place of supposed safe-keeping, he is not only insusceptible of reform but, in spite of our cautious custody, renews his depredations upon his fellows. While he lives, his malevolence continues irrepressible. Thus, a man shot another, was adjudged insane, and committed to a criminal asylum. Here he killed another man, made repeated attempts to assault the governor of the institution and, finally, with the assistance of another patient, indirectly caused his death. When reasoned with, this criminal lunatic replied: "What harm can it do me? I killed a man before and am already in this asylum. A criminal with, it is said, ninety-three indictments against him for burglary at the time of his conviction, was sent to Auburn Prison with a life sentence. tried to burn the prison, was adjudged insane, and transferred to the Matteawan Asylum for insane 1 1 Appendix 3.

? Mental Science, xl., 596, 1894-95.

992

He

criminals. Here, again, he tried to burn his prison, lighting fires in five different places at once, with much ingenuity, and a great loss of life was narrowly averted.' It is well known with what constant watchfulness the criminal condemned to death now needs to be controlled, and it will be quite as necessary that the guards who maintain discipline among these convicts bereft of hope shall constitute a similar" death-watch"-but gigantic and perennial.

We must think, too, of the brutalizing effect of their work upon the many men acting as keepers. Their intercourse with these dangerous criminals would have nothing of kindliness about it: on the one side there would be dogged antagonism and hatred, on the other fear and the constant infliction' of cruel punishment; and the toleration of these halls of torture could hardly fail to debase the sense of humanity in the world outside. Speaking of the imprisoned criminal, a well-known authority says: "His will is obliterated, his powers of decision and action are reduced to a nullity.

For the he is

time being the world is dead to him shut up within the narrow horizon of his own disordered imaginings; he lives and breathes in a polluted atmosphere of monotony, solitude, and gloom. His social sympathies are repressed and starved. The human element in the prisoner's life is reduced to a minimum; he is only allowed to retain the instincts and faculties which he has in common with solitary birds and beasts of prey.'

1 New York Herald, Jan. 25, 1896.

2 W. D. Morrison, Juvenile Offenders, pp. 271-2, New York, 1897.

2