Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 247 



scientific and professional gentlemen to whom the public 

 looked for advice. Qui legal luminaries held the view 

 that all men were responsible for their crimes, except 

 in the case of acute mania, when it coiild be proved 

 that the accused did not know the difference between 

 right and wrong ; while the medical fratei-nity, though 

 by no means unanimously, urged irresponsibility when- 

 ever there was any form of brain disease, no matter 

 how slight, or even where it was only suspected. It 

 was as well, perhaps, for the general well-being, that 

 society was still willing to accept the guidance of 

 our legal, rather than of our medical, friends. But as 

 theories that were flung broadcast among the people were 

 certain to obtain some adherents, and as such theories, 

 if largely appealing to our sj-mpathies, might lead to 

 dangerous changes in public opinion, it was well that 

 scientific societies should meet and discuss all such theories, 

 for the benefit of the public, and in order that our laws 

 might be wisely ordained; law being the ciystalHsation of 

 public opinion. Another difliculty arose from contusion in 

 the terms used, and their true significance. For instance, 

 "retributive punishment" was frequently described as 

 " revenge," which of course was quite incorrect ; yet many 

 writers, Mr. Sutherland also, used the phrase in this sense. 

 Then there was the extremely narrow view advanced by 

 some writei's that, earl}' in the world's history, punishment 

 was retributive only ; that later, it was sought to be made 

 deterrent; and that as it had failed to be deterrent, it should 

 therefore seek to be reformatory only. He alluded to this 

 as a naiTow view, because he hoped to indicate presently 

 that punishment should partake of all three qualities — 

 that it should be retributive, deterrent and reformatory. 

 There was another difficulty that must frequently occui 

 to the unscientific mind, how to reconcile such statements 

 as Mr. Sutherland's, that "the treatment of criminals was 

 not a matter of abstract justice, but of pure policy. It was 

 not concerned with ethics, but with the preservation of law 

 and order." S])encer laid down as the fundamental law of 

 human justice, "that each individual ought to receive the 

 benefits and the evils of his own nature and consequent 

 conduct ; neither being prevented from having whatever 

 good his actions normally bring to him, nor allowed to 

 shoulder off on to other persons whatever ill was brought 

 to him by his actions." The question of the respon- 



