ANTISOCIAL behavior: DELINQUENCY AND CRIME 39 1 



them making the notable statement that if all in conference 

 had the same facts there would be no reason for disagreement. 

 (Incidentally, it should be remembered that the psychiatrists 

 were not acting merely as aHenists. The question of insanity 

 was not brought up in the court, and indeed under the law 

 it is the jury in IHinois which decides the question of insanity, 

 that is, properly speaking, legal irresponsibihty. But there 

 was no jury in this case, and no trial. It was merely a hearing 

 before the judge, after the plea of guilty had been made.) 

 The state's attorney refused, probably on account of possible 

 criticism of his office, to allow the experts he had engaged 

 to enter into such an arrangement and consultation. Here 

 came out in strong demarcation the difference between the 

 standpoints of the law and of science: Any appearance in 

 court is regarded as high contest, there is short shrift for 

 any idea that digging out the whole truth for the sake of 

 society is an end to be aimed at. The usual procedure is 

 that the prosecutor seeks to prove guilt, the defending 

 lawyer to prove innocence or as near it as possible, and 

 neither seeks to establish the exact truth. What might have 

 been a historical event of importance for progress was 

 blocked in the above case by legaHsm, science was not 

 allowed to have fair play in the situation. It is only through a 

 fair-minded attempt to study the total situation and present 

 it in court (it was finally very largely done in the above 

 case by the psychiatrists) that respect for what science has 

 to offer in criminology will grow among the legal profession. 

 The main points to be made are that American judges and 

 other officials of the law are very slightly indeed acquainted 

 with criminology. Secondly, the older criminology, repre- 

 sented by many volumes on library shelves is mainly 

 theoretical and by no means well developed from the 

 standpoint of treatment of offenders. In consequence of 

 both these facts the application of the modern methods of 

 science to the individual case is exceedingly limited as 

 affairs now stand. This appears surpassingly strange, 

 since treatment is the one big issue: how to protect society, 

 how to handle the offender so that he will cease his criminal- 

 istic tendencies. The legal therapeutist who prescribes 

 some treatment, such as a period in jail, has little or no 



