While punishment cannot be defended, still self-defense is inherent in both individuals and society and, without arguing its justification, no one can imagine a society that will not assert it and act for its defense.  This will be true regardless of whether the given society is worth preserving or not.  Inherent in all life and organization is the impulse of self-preservation.  Those members of society who are sufficiently “anti-social” from the standpoint of the time and place will not be tolerated unduly to disturb the rest.  These, in certain instances, will be destroyed or deprived of their power to harm.  If society has a right attitude toward the subject, if it has imagination and sympathy and understanding, it will isolate these victims, not in anger but in pity, solely for the protection of the whole.  Some there are who ask what difference it makes whether it is called punishment or not.  I think that the attitude of society toward the criminal makes the whole difference, and any improvement is out of the question until this attitude influences and controls the whole treatment of the question of crime and punishment.

If doctors and scientists had been no wiser than lawyers, judges, legislatures and the public, the world would still be punishing imbeciles, the insane, the inferior and the sick; and treating human ailments with incantations, witchcraft, force and magic.  We should still be driving devils out of the sick and into the swine.

Assuming then that man is governed by external conditions; that he inevitably reacts to certain stimuli; that he is affected by all the things that surround him; that his every act and manifestation is a result of law; what then must we and can we do with and for the criminal?

First of all we must abandon the idea of working his moral reformation, as the term “moral reformation” is popularly understood.  As well might we cure the physically ill in that way!  Man works according to his structure.  He never does reform and cannot reform.  As he grows older his structure changes and from increase of vitality or from decrease of vitality his habits, too, may change.  He may likewise learn by experience, and through the comparing and recalling of experiences and their consequences may build up rules of conduct which will restrain him from doing certain things that he otherwise would do.  Anything that increases his knowledge and adds to his experience will naturally affect his habits and will either build up or tear down inhibitions or do both, as the case may be.  If he has intelligence he knows he is always the same man; that he has not reformed nor repented.  He may regret that he did certain things but he knows why and how he did them and why he will not repeat them if he can avoid it.  The intrinsic character of the man cannot change, for the machine is the same and will always be the same, except that it may run faster or slower with the passing years, or it may be influenced by the habits gained from experience and life.