Fyuceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 251 



present enquiry. It would be sufficient to say that tb(^ 

 trend of modern thought was in the direction of abolish- 

 ing fixed limits to sentences ; that our prisons should 

 be made into Reformatories, where every hour would be 

 profitab]}' occupied, and that when prisoners were reported 

 fit, they should be allowed out on parole. Also, that 

 the surest way to check tbe increase of the criminal 

 class, is to remove criminal children to a healthy environ- 

 ment. 



Mr. RuSDEN remarked that Colonel Goldstein had omitted 

 to mention the system of indeterminate sentences, which he 

 believed to be one which would soon be adopted. Mr. 

 Havelock Ellis mentioned it as having been introduced into 

 America some time ago. To Mr. Frederick Hill belonged 

 the honour of first suggesting this fruitful reform. Lunatics 

 were dealt with on this principle. A lunatic was not 

 liberated until two medical gentlemen certified that the 

 treatment to which lie had been subjected had been 

 successful, and that he was fit to be released. At present 

 tlie law fixed a maximum, and in some cases, a minimum 

 sentence, and the criminal was released very much the worse 

 for his imprisonment after a shoi't definite period, fixed 

 without regard to reason. If the system of indeterminate 

 sentences were given a fair trial, he thought it would be 

 found much more satisfactory than that at present in vogue. 

 He did not believe it was possible to reform a man who had 

 grown accustomed to commit crimes, but with first offenders 

 this system might be veiy successful. 



Mr. Alexander Sutherland said that whilst there was 

 little to cavil at in Colonel Goldstein's i)aper, there was one 

 point as to which he thought he detected an uncertain 

 sound — viz., with regard to the nature of punishment. 

 Colonel Goldstein had said that punishment might either 

 be retributive, deterrent, or reformatory. If punishment 

 were reformatory, it ceased to be punishment at all. One 

 could not logically speak of reformatory punishment. In 

 that case, it was simply a mode of treating criminals whicli 

 was reformatory. He agreed with Mr. Rusden that, if a 

 man were allowed to grow up a criminal, he could not be 

 reformed. The leading authorities were agieed on that 

 point. Bej'ond the age of 10 or 12, the chance of reform 

 was apparently slight. If a man lived up to the age of 20 

 as a criminal, nothing practically would reform him. Not 



