neither the purpose nor the effect of punishment has ever been definitely agreed upon, even by its most strenuous advocates. so long as punishment persists it will be a subject of discussion and dispute. no doubt the idea of punishment originated in the feeling of resentment and hatred and vengeance that, to some extent at least, is incident to life. the dog is hit with a stick and turns and bites the stick. animals repel attack and fight their enemies to death. the primitive man vented his hatred and vengeance on things animate and inanimate. in the tribes no injury was satisfied until some member of the offending tribe was killed. in more recent times family feuds have followed down the generations and were not forgotten until the last member of a family was destroyed. biologically, anger and hatred follow fear and injury, and punishment follows these in turn. individuals, communities and whole peoples hate and swear vengeance for an injury, real or fancied. punishments, even to the extent of death, are inflicted where there can be no possible object except revenge. whether the victim is weak or strong, old or young, sane or insane, makes no difference; men and societies react to injury exactly as animals react.
that vengeance is the moving purpose of punishment is abundantly shown by the religious teachings that shape the ethical ideas of the western world. the old testament abounds in the justification of vengeance. a few quotations amply show the biblical approval of this doctrine:
whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. genesis 9;6.
no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. numbers 35;33.
wherefore should the nations [gentiles] say, where is their [the jews'] god? let the avenging of the blood of thy servants which is shed, be known among the nations in our sight. psalms 79;10.
the righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked; so that men shall say, verily there is a reward for the righteous, verily there is a god that judgeth in the earth. psalms 58;10.
and i [god] will execute vengeance in anger and wrath upon the nations which hearkened not. micah 5;15.
all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission. hebrews 9;22.
for we know him that said, vengeance belongeth unto me. ... it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living god. hebrews 10;30.
true it is often claimed that jesus repudiated the doctrine of vengeance. the passage of 5th matthew, 38-30 is often quoted in proof of this assertion—"ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. but i say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." but the gospels and the other books of the new testament show plainly that non-resistance was not laid down as a rule for the guidance of mankind, but only as a policy by one sect of the jews and christians to save themselves from the romans. the reason for the doctrine was the belief that resistance was hopeless, and that god who had the power would in his own time visit on the oppressors the vengeance that the jews and christians were too weak to inflict. jesus and the early christians knew of no people beyond their immediate territory, and they did not appeal to mankind as a whole, or to future generations.
the early christians believed in judging and in punishment as vengeance, the same as the jews and other peoples believed in it. (see 13 matthew 41-43, 23 matthew 33, 25 matthew 46.) they believed that the end of the world was at hand; that the coming of the lord was imminent; that some of that generation would not taste death, and that god would punish sinners in his own time. the new testament is replete with this doctrine, which was stated and elaborated in the so-called "revelations of st. peter."
probably this document was composed about the year 150 a.d. and by the year 200 it was read as "scripture" in some christian communities. subsequently it disappeared and was known only by name until a substantial fragment of the document was discovered at akhmim in egypt, in the year 1887. a portion of it represents a scene in which the disciples of jesus ask him to show them the state of the righteous dead, in order that this knowledge may be used to encourage people to accept christianity. the request is granted and the disciples are shown not only a vision of the delightful abodes of the righteous, but also a vivid picture of the punishments that are being meted out to the wicked. it is interesting to note how the punishments are devised to balance in truly retributive fashion the crimes mentioned. it is this type of tradition that furnished dante and milton the basis for their pictures of hell.
the following is the more interesting portion of this document:
and the lord showed me [peter] a very great country outside of this world, exceeding bright with light, and the air there lighted with rays of the sun, and the earth itself blooming with unfading flowers and full of spices and plants, fair-flowering and incorruptible and bearing blessed fruit. and so great was the perfume that it was borne thence even unto us. and the dwellers in that place were clad in the raiment of shining angels and their raiment was like unto their country; and angels hovered about them there. and the glory of the dwellers there was equal, and with one voice they sang praises alternately to the lord god, rejoicing in that place. the lord said to us, this is the place of your brethren the righteous.
and over against that place i saw another, exceedingly parched, and it was the place of punishment. and those who were being punished there and the angels who punished them wore dark raiment like the air of the place.
certain persons there were hanging by the tongue. these were they who blaspheme the way of righteousness, and under them lay a fire whose flames tortured them.
also there was a great lake full of flaming mire in which were certain men that pervert righteousness, and tormenting angels afflicted them.
and there were also others, women, hanged by their hair over that mire that flamed up, and these were they who adorned themselves for adultery. and the men who mingled with them in the defilement of adultery, were hanging by the feet with their heads in that mire, and they exclaimed in a loud voice: we did not believe that we should come to this place.
and i saw the murderers and their accomplices cast into a certain narrow place full of evil snakes where these evil beasts smote them while they turned to and fro in that punishment, and worms like great black clouds afflicted them. and the souls of those who had been murdered said, as they stood and looked upon the punishment of their murderers, o god, just is thy judgment.
and other men and women were aflame up to the middle, and were cast into a dark place and were beaten by evil spirits, and their inwards were eaten by restless worms. these were they who persecuted the righteous and delivered them up to the authorities.
and over against these were other men and women gnawing their tongues and having flaming fire in their mouths. these were false witnesses.
and in a certain other place there were pebbles sharper than swords or any needle, red hot, and women and men in tattered and filthy raiment, rolled about on them in punishment. these were the rich who trusted in their riches and had no pity for orphans and widows and despised the commandment of god.
and in another great lake full of boiling pitch and blood and mire stood men and women up to their knees. these were the usurers and those who take compound interest.
the noted preacher, scholar and president of princeton college, jonathan edwards, in his famous sermon, "sinners in the hands of an angry god," put in forcible and picturesque language the religious and legal view of punishment as vengeance:
they [sinners] deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against god's using his power at any moment to destroy them. yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment on their sins. divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of sodom, "cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?" luke xiii. 7. the sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and god's mere will, that holds it back.
they are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of god, that is expressed in the torments of hell: and the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because god, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as angry as he is with many of those miserable creatures that he is now tormenting in hell, and do there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. yea, god is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth; yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, that, it may be, are at ease and quiet, than he is with many of those that are now in the flames of hell.
so that it is not because god is unmindful of their wickedness and does not resent it, that he does not let loose his hand and cut them off. god is not altogether such a one as themselves, though they imagine him to be so. the wrath of god burns against them; their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared; the fire is made ready; the furnace is now hot; ready to receive them; the flames rage and glow. the glittering sword is whet and held over them, and the pit hath opened her mouth under them.
the god that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes than the most hateful and venomous serpent is in ours. you have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince: and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment; it is ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep; and there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that god's hand has held you up; there is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of god provoking his pure eyes by your sinful, wicked manner of attending his solemn worship; yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.
o sinner! consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that god whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you as against many of the damned in hell: you hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce god to spare you one moment.
consider this, you that are here present, that yet remain in an unregenerate state. that god will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies that he will inflict wrath without any pity.
even though increasing knowledge may have somewhat softened the language of vengeance, still both religion and the law have found their chief justification for punishment in the doctrine of revenge.
the church has constantly taught from the first that god would punish the sinner with everlasting torment. it has taught that all are bad from birth and can be saved only by grace. the punishment to be suffered was as terrible as man's mind could conceive. it would continue infinitely beyond the time when it might be needed for correction or example. in spite of a few humane or over-sensitive ministers, the doctrine persists and is carefully preserved by the church. that the state likewise holds fast to the idea of vengeance, punishment for the sake of suffering, is just as evident. one needs only to note the force and degree of hatred of the good to the one accused of crime, and the zeal that is shown for a man hunt, to realize how deeply the feeling of vengeance is planted in the structure of man. the truth is that it was a part of life before religion and political institutions were evolved.
still, most people are now ashamed to admit that punishment is based on vengeance and, for that reason, various excuses and apologies have been offered for the cruelty that goes with it. some of the more humane, or "squeamish," who still believe in punishment, contend that the object of this infliction is the reformation of the victim. this, of course, cannot be urged of the death penalty or even punishment for life, or for very long-term sentences. in these cases there is neither inducement to reform nor any object in the reformation. no matter how thorough the reform, the prisoner never goes back to society, or he returns after there is no longer a chance for him to be of use to the world or to enjoy life.
those who say that punishment is for the purpose of reforming the prisoner are not familiar with human psychology. the prison almost invariably tends to brutalize men and breeds bitterness and blank despair. the life of the ordinary prisoner is given over to criticism and resentment against existing things, especially to settled hatred of those who are responsible for his punishment. only a few, and these are the weakest, ever blame themselves for their situation. every man of intelligence can trace the various steps that led him to the prison door, and he can feel, if he does not understand, how inevitable each step was. the number of "repeaters" in prison shows the effect of this kind of a living death upon the inmates. to be branded as a criminal and turned out in the world again leaves one weakened in the struggle of life and handicapped in a race that is hard enough for most men at the best. in prison and after leaving prison, the man lives in a world of his own; a world where all moral values are different from those professed by the jailer and society in general. the great influence that helps to keep many men from committing crime—the judgment of his fellows—no longer deters him in his conduct. in fact, every person who understands penal institutions—no matter how well such places are managed—knows that a thousand are injured or utterly destroyed by service in prison, where one is helped.
very few persons seriously believe that offenders are sent to prison out of kindness to the men. if there were any foundation for this idea, each prisoner would be carefully observed, and when he was fit would be returned to the world. not even the parole laws, which provide various reasons and ways for shortening sentences, ever lay down the rule that one may be released when he has reformed.
a much larger class of people offers the excuse that punishment deters from crime. in fact, this idea is so well rooted that few think of questioning it. the idea that punishment deters from crime does not mean that the individual prisoner is prevented from another criminal act. a convicted man is kept in jail for as long a time as in the judgment of the jury, the court, or the parole board, will make him atone, or at least suffer sufficiently for the offence. if the terms are not long enough, they can be made longer. the idea that punishment deters, means that unless a shall be punished for murder, then b will kill; therefore a must be punished, not for his own sake, but to keep b from crime. this is vicarious punishment which can hardly appeal to one who is either just or humane. but does punishing a keep b from the commission of crime? it certainly does not make a more social man of b. if it operates on him in any way it is to make him afraid to commit crime; but the direct result of scaring b is not to keep him from the commission of crime, but to make him use precautions that will keep him safe from discovery. how far the fear of detection and punishment prevents crime is, of course, purely theoretical and cannot be settled either by statistics or logic. one thing is sure, that if b is kept from crime, it is through fear, and of all the enemies of man, fear is the one which causes most misery and pain.
there are many facts that show that the punishment of one does not deter others. over and over again crimes are committed, by the young especially, that resemble in every detail a previous crime which has received large publicity through the newspapers, often through the hanging of some culprit. even the unthinking public, always clamoring for severe penalties, does not believe that the example of punishment deters. the public forbids the exhibition of pictures of hangings and of crimes. somehow, vaguely and dimly as most men see everything, the public realizes that instead of punishments preventing crime, punishments suggest crime. in the olden days when men admitted that vengeance and punishment went together, they were at least more logical, for executions were in the open light of day so all might see and be deterred.
but this sort of punishment was abolished long ago. now executions are behind tightly-closed doors, often before day-break, with no one present but a doctor to pronounce the victim dead, a preacher to try to save his soul, and a few favored guests. the most humane individuals advocate suppressing the stories in the newspapers, beyond an obituary notice for the deceased, and forbidding the publication of the details of the crime and its penalty. so far as this succeeds, it is a confession that punishment does not deter, but instead suggests and encourages crime. the idea that crime is prevented by punishment, if believed, would be followed by requirements that the young should visit prisons that they might realize the consequences of crime, and that all executions should be public and should be performed on the highest hill.
so much has been written about the decrease of crime that follows the reduction of penalties, and likewise about the numerous crimes of violence which generally follow public hangings, that it is hardly necessary to recall it to the reader. the fact is, those who say that punishment deters have no confidence in their own statement.
the operations of the human mind have always been clouded in mystery and obscurity. the effect of what is seen and heard and felt has never been certain. the great power of suggestion, especially with the young, is only now beginning to be understood. many things can be done by suggestion. the immature brain records everything that the senses carry to it through the nerves; these records, through lively imagination, are constantly suggesting and urging to action. all good teachers and observing parents know its power and, so far as such matters can be proved, it seems clear that the details of crime and punishment reproduce themselves over and over again by the suggestion carried to the mind, especially with the young. there is every reason to think that suggestions of crime will affect the mind as much as suggestions of adventure, love or war.
does it then follow that no one shall be restrained from freedom on account of either his actions or his nature? it is really idle to ask this question. no matter what one may think of the so-called criminal and his responsibility, or quite regardless of whether we feel pity or hatred, the great mass of the community will not suffer one who has little self-control to interfere seriously and directly with the peace and happiness of the community in which he lives. whether by the action of the law or by vigilance committees, some men will not be allowed to be at large. doubtless under proper treatment and environment most of this sort of anti-social conduct would disappear, but for many years to come it will remain.
taking away the liberty of another has only one justification. the great mass of people in any community must and will act for self-defense. it needs no fine-spun theories to justify it. hatred should have nothing to do with it. the conduct of man in this regard is only like that of the animal which destroys the one that is inimical to the pack or herd. the self-protection of the group is the same as the self-protection of the individual. both the group and the man will save their lives against a lunatic or any other menace, regardless of the nature of the menace.
punishment, in the proper meaning of the term, cannot be justified by any reasoning. punishment really means the infliction of pain because the individual has wilfully transgressed. its supposed justification is that somehow the evil done is atoned for, or made good, or balanced if the author of the evil shall suffer pain. punishment means that the suffering by the victim is the end, and it does not mean that any good will grow out of the suffering. it seems as if the question only needed to be stated for right-thinking men to deny the validity of punishment.
it may be argued that whether the victim is punished or simply restrained can make no difference. in this lies the whole difference between scientific and humane treatment of the unfortunate, and the vengeful punishments that have always been visited by the strong upon the helpless and the weak. society restrains the imbecile, the dangerously insane, the victims of deadly, contagious diseases. all these are restrained without any feeling of hatred, but with pity and understanding. society does not keep one of these persons under restraint after he has sufficiently recovered to make it safe to return him to the community; neither does it release one until he is safe. it uses the best methods for his treatment that may make him fit to live with his fellows, and the best efforts to place him in a proper environment when discharged. neither does any disgrace nor humiliation nor handicap attach to the unfortunate when discharged. in a sense, the attitude of mind held by the group toward the "criminal" is the whole question. from this everything follows, and without it change or humanity or hope is not possible.
it is true that insane asylums, homes for the feeble-minded, and hospitals are not what they should be, nor what they will be some day. all of this is not due to the attitude of the mind of the public, but is due to the method of administration which is not within the scope of this book. if justice and humanity shall ever have to do with the treatment of the criminal, and if science shall ever be called upon in this, one of the most serious and painful questions of the ages, it is necessary, first, that the public shall have a better understanding of crime and criminals.
