PvoceediiKjs of the Royal Society of Victoria. 241 



some form of restriction adopted to the various needs of 

 those with v/hom it had to deal. There were, undoubtedly, 

 persons in whom hereditary traits were very strong, who 

 were borne almost irresistibly towards crime, and ibr the 

 security of society the State might deal with tliose persoiis 

 in a ditferent way from that in whicli others were treate*]. 

 Still, with regard to a great number, it should be borne in 

 mind that tlie humanitarian spirit of the age demanded that 

 the possibility of reformation should be kept in view. The 

 trend of modern thought was away from the old idea of 

 retribution ; but he thought they should recognise the 

 elements of truth, even in that old theory of retribution, 

 and the elements of trutli were, that when something was 

 committed wliich was regarded as criminal — acts of violence 

 or fraud — there was a healthy feeling of resentment. He 

 did not think that feeling should be suppressed, though it 

 should be woven in with the other ideas of reformation. 

 It should also be borne in mind that, when men were 

 punished, they very frequently felt that they deserved it. 

 While he thoroughly agreed with Mr. Sutherland that the 

 State was perfectly warranted, for th<^ suppression of crime 

 and the protection of society, in adhering to any punish- 

 ments which had been adopted to bring about this aim, he 

 did not think, on consideration of the whole question, that 

 the moral aspect could be entirely left out. 



Dr. Jamikson agreed with the conclusion arrived at in the 

 jmper, that yjunishment must be inflicted without yielding 

 to any particular philosophical opinions one might hold 

 about free-will. The crux of the question related to capital 

 punishment. If that punishment was to be applied mainly 

 for deterrent purposes, and for its influence on others for 

 reformative purposes, was it not absurdly unffur that it 

 should be inflicted on a person who was held not to be fairly 

 responsible for what he did. It was a question how far 

 capital punishment was allowable at all on any supposition 

 of necessitarianism. A School of Criminal Anthropologists 

 was in existence, who were prepared to carry out their ideas 

 to perfectly logical conclusions — especially what was called 

 the Italian School. Lambrosa went so far as to lay down as 

 -a principle that there are instinctive criminals, and that it 

 was as absurd to punish such a person as it would be to 

 punish a person for having small-pox ; that there existed no 

 right in any sense of the word to punish such a person for 

 retributive or deterrent purposes. He thought the common 



R 



