This is the popular view of crime; yet no dog goes mad from choice, and probably the same is true of the great majority of criminals, certainly in the case of crimes of passion.Even in cases where self-interest is themotive, the important thing is to prevent the crime, not to make the criminal suffer.Any suffering which may be entailed by the process of prevention ought to be regarded as regrettable, like the pain involved in a surgical operation.The man who commits a crime from an impulse to violence ought to be subjected to a scientific psychological treatment, designed to elicit more beneficial impulses.The man who commits a crime from calculations of self- interest ought to be made to feel that self- interest itself, when it is fully understood, can be better served by a life which is useful to the community than by one which is harmful.For this purpose it is chiefly necessary to widen his outlook and increase the scope of his desires.At present, when a man suffers from insufficient love for his fellow-creatures, the method of curing him which is commonly adopted seems scarcely designed to succeed, being, indeed, in essentials, the same as his attitude toward them.The object of the prison administration is to save trouble, not to study the individual case.He is kept in captivity in a cell from which all sight of the earth is shut out: he is subjected to harshness by warders, who have too often become brutalized by their occupation.[53] He is solemnly denounced as an enemy to society.He is compelled to perform mechanical tasks, chosen for their wearisomeness.He is given no education and no incentive to self-improvement.Is it to be wondered at if, at the end of such a course of treatment, his feelings toward the community are no more friendly than they were at the beginning?
[53] This was written before the author had any personal experience of the prison system.He personally met with nothing but kindness at the hands of the prison officials.
Severity of punishment arose through vindictiveness and fear in an age when many criminals escaped justice altogether, and it was hoped that savage sentences would outweigh the chance of escape in the mind of the criminal.At present a very large part of the criminal law is concerned in safeguarding the rights of property, that is to say--as things are now--the unjust privileges of the rich.Those whose principles lead them into conflict with government, like Anarchists, bring a most formidable indictment against the law and the authorities for the unjust manner inwhich they support the status quo.Many of the actions by which men have become rich are far more harmful to the community than the obscure crimes of poor men, yet they go unpunished because they do not interfere with the existing order.If the power of the community is to be brought to bear to prevent certain classes of actions through the agency of the criminal law, it is as necessary that these actions should really be those which are harmful to the community, as it is that the treatment of``criminals'' should be freed from the conception of guilt and inspired by the same spirit as is shown in the treatment of disease.But, if these two conditions were fulfilled, I cannot help thinking that a society which preserved the existence of law would be preferable to one conducted on the unadulterated principles of Anarchism.
So far we have been considering the power which the State derives from the criminal law.We have every reason to think that this power cannot be entirely abolished, though it can be exercised in a wholly different spirit, without the vindictiveness and the moral reprobation which now form its essence.
We come next to the consideration of the economic power of the State and the influence which it can exert through its bureaucracy.State Socialists argue as if there would be no danger to liberty in a State not based upon capitalism.This seems to me an entire delusion.Given an official caste, however selected, there are bound to be a set of men whose whole instincts will drive them toward tyranny.Together with the natural love of power, they will have a rooted conviction (visible now in the higher ranks of the Civil Service) that they alone know enough to be able to judge what is for the good of the community.Like all men who administer a system, they will come to feel the system itself sacrosanct.The only changes they will desire will be changes in the direction of further regulations as to how the people are to enjoy the good things kindly granted to them by their benevolent despots.Whoever thinks this picture overdrawn must have failed to study the influence and methods of Civil Servants at present.On every matter that arises, they know far more than the general public about all the DEFINITE facts involved; the one thing they do not know is ``where the shoe pinches.'' But those who knowthis are probably not skilled in stating their case, not able to say off-hand exactly how many shoes are pinching how many feet, or what is the precise remedy required.The answer prepared for Ministers by the Civil Service is accepted by the ``respectable'' public as impartial, and is regarded as disposing of the case of malcontents except on a first-class political question on which elections may be won or lost.That at least is the way in which things are managed in England.And there is every reason to fear that under State Socialism the power of officials would be vastly greater than it is at present.
