THE PRINCIPLES OF PUNISHMENT

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1266, 9 April 1878, Page 3

THE PRINCIPLES OF PUNISHMENT

The following notice of a book heaving Mm above tiile, by Mr Serjeant Cox, is extracted from the "Spectator" of a late date : The subject is one on which the author can speak from great experience, as he has tried upwards of 13,000 prisouers for every variety of crimes except murder. He suggests that periodical conferences of those who administer the criminal laiv, might, be the means of bringing about an approach to uniformity in the punishment of crime, and so avoid serious scandals, which will continually occur, ag matters are now. Punishment, he holds, should aim chiefly and primarily at being deterrent. Moral reform must be quite a subordinate object; it is too difficult and doubtful for society to attempt, except quite indirectly. The habitual criminal, the author inclines to think, is never reformed. It is for the law to fix the punishment, and the Judge's province is solely to mitigate. When, therefore, complaints are made of the severity of the judge, they arise from misconception, as the severity really belongs to the law, and this the Judge cannot increase, but can only mitigate at his discretion. This is, no doubt, perfectly true, but what we really mean when we say that a Judge has been in a particular case too severe, is merely that he has not wisely exercised his discretion in mitigai ing the prescribed punishment to the degree which seems to us reasonable. As long as he has the power to do this it appears to us that the epithet " severe" may very properly be applied to him. We find that Serjeant Cox believes in the efficacy of whipping, and would have the whipping age extended to at least eighteen or twenty. Of occasional petty larcenies, the most frequent motive would seem to be the gratification of the desire of drink, and the smallest temptations so often lead to theft, that we are almost obliged to resort to a theory of kleptomania. There would seem to be a state of mind to which the exercise of furtioeness is in itself a positive fascination, and such an infirmity must be taken account of in awarding punishment. To young girls, in the author's opinion, imprisonment is almost certain moral ruin, and ought under hardly any circumstances to bo inflicted. Education, he thinks, is, on the whole, likely to Btimidate crimes committed for gain, as its tendency is to increase and multiply our wants. It facilitates, too, the commission of such crimes, and is calculated to substitute crimes of fraud for those of mere vulgar larceny and violence. It is, therefore, a popular fallacy to regard it as an unmixed good. We fear that the criminal annals of our own day are confirming this view. As to capital punishment, the author has no doubt that the exceptional nature of the punishment makes it exceptionally deterrent, and that civilised society cannot well tiispenso with it. Our criminal Courts, he observes, are popular because all classes have almost perfect confidence in them, and the worst criminal knows in his heart that when he is brought into the dock he will have fairplay. On the whole, we have, it appears, reason to congratulate ourselves on our existing system, which, if it allows many criminals to escape, gives all of us a sense of security. Serjeant Cox's book, we should suppose, will be profitable reading for those who have to administer our laws.