1.Theft.--It is true that in an Anarchist world there will be no destitution, and therefore no thefts motivated by starvation.But such thefts are at present by no means the most considerable or the most harmful.The system of rationing, which is to be applied to luxuries, will leave many men with fewer luxuries than they might desire.It will give opportunities for peculation by those who are in control of the public stores, and it will leave the possibility of appropriating such valuable objects of art as would naturally be preserved in public museums.It may be contended that such forms of theft would be prevented by public opinion.But public opinion is not greatly operative upon an individual unless it is the opinion of his own group.A group of men combined for purposes of theft might readily defy the public opinion of the majority unless that public opinion made itself effective by the use of force against them.Probably, in fact, such forcewould be applied through popular indignation, but in that case we should revive the evils of the criminal law with the added evils of uncertainty, haste and passion, which are inseparable from the practice of lynching.If, as we have suggested, it were found necessary to provide an economic stimulus to work by allowing fewer luxuries to idlers, this would afford a new motive for theft on their part and a new necessity for some form of criminal law.
2.Crimes of Violence.--Cruelty to children, crimes of jealousy, rape, and so forth, are almost certain to occur in any society to some extent.The prevention of such acts is essential to the existence of freedom for the weak.If nothing were done to hinder them, it is to be feared that the customs of a society would gradually become rougher, and that acts which are now rare would cease to be so.If Anarchists are right in maintaining that the existence of such an economic system as they desire would prevent the commission of crimes of this kind, the laws forbidding them would no longer come into operation, and would do no harm to liberty.If, on the other hand, the impulse to such actions persisted, it would be necessary that steps should be taken to restrain men from indulging it.
3.The third class of difficulties is much the most serious and involves much the most drastic interference with liberty.I do not see how a private army could be tolerated within an Anarchist community, and I do not see how it could be prevented except by a general prohibition of carrying arms.If there were no such prohibition, rival parties would organize rival forces, and civil war would result.Yet, if there is such a prohibition, it cannot well be carried out without a very considerable interference with individual liberty.No doubt, after a time, the idea of using violence to achieve a political object might die down, as the practice of duelling has done.But such changes of habit and outlook are facilitated by legal prohibition, and would hardly come about without it.I shall not speak yet of the international aspect of this same problem, for I propose to deal with that in the next chapter, but it is clear that the same considerations apply with even greater force to the relations between nations.
If we admit, however reluctantly, that a criminal law is necessary and that the force of the community must be brought to bear to prevent certainkinds of actions, a further question arises: How is crime to be treated? What is the greatest measure of humanity and respect for freedom that is compatible with the recognition of such a thing as crime? The first thing to recognize is that the whole conception of guilt or sin should be utterly swept away.At present, the criminal is visited with the displeasure of the community: the sole method applied to prevent the occurrence of crime is the infliction of pain upon the criminal.Everything possible is done to break his spirit and destroy his self-respect.Even those pleasures which would be most likely to have a civilizing effect are forbidden to him, merely on the ground that they are pleasures, while much of the suffering inflicted is of a kind which can only brutalize and degrade still further.I am not speaking, of course, of those few penal institutions which have made a serious study of reforming the criminal.Such institutions, especially in America, have been proved capable of achieving the most remarkable results, but they remain everywhere exceptional.The broad rule is still that the criminal is made to feel the displeasure of society.He must emerge from such a treatment either defiant and hostile, or submissive and cringing, with a broken spirit and a loss of self-respect.Neither of these results is anything but evil.Nor can any good result be achieved by a method of treatment which embodies reprobation.
When a man is suffering from an infectious disease he is a danger to the community, and it is necessary to restrict his liberty of movement.But no one associates any idea of guilt with such a situation.On the contrary, he is an object of commiseration to his friends.Such steps as science recommends are taken to cure him of his disease, and he submits as a rule without reluctance to the curtailment of liberty involved meanwhile.The same method in spirit ought to be shown in the treatment of what is called``crime.'' It is supposed, of course, that the criminal is actuated by calculations of self-interest, and that the fear of punishment, by supplying a contrary motive of self-interest affords the best deterrent, The dog, to gain some private end, Went mad and bit the man.
