PRINCIPLES OF REFORM IN PENAL LAW. 



BY CHARLTON T. LEWIS. 



[Charlton Thomas Lewis, lawyer; born West Chester, Pa., February 25, 1834; pre- 

 pared for college at West Chester High school; graduated Yale, 1853; studied law 

 1853-4; studied for Methodist ministry, 1855-6; professor of languages, Illinois normal 

 university, 1856-7; professor mathematics Troy university, 1858; Greek, 1859-62; 

 U. S. Deputy commissioner of internal revenue, 1863-4; practiced law in New York, 

 1864-70; managing editor New York Post, 1870-1,; secretary and treasurer New York 

 Chamber Life Insurance, 1873-7; practiced law in N'ew York since 1877.] 



The traditional methods of dealing with crime and the 

 conceptions and habits of thought which sustain them form a 

 stronghold of conservatism. To attack it is to meet the re- 

 proach of devotion to mere theory and abandonment of practi- 

 cal good sense. It is time for reformers to show that the re- 

 proach properly falls upon prevaihng notions and practices, 

 and that there is a pressing necessity for a scientific study of 

 the subject in the light of human nature and of experience. 

 Penal law as it exists has grown out of the theoretic study of 

 crime as an entity. Its proper basis is the practical study of 

 criminals as men. Its lack of a controlling principle is not 

 merely a fatal defect in its theory, but makes it, if not value- 

 less, of very imperfect utility. 



The end in view in society's dealing with crime should be 

 its own protection. The ideal to be held before it is the elimi- 

 nation of crime. This aim is already recognized in many 

 branches of law and administration as a potent motive. The 

 police system is organized for the prevention of crime. Pub- 

 lic education is largely supported with the same end in view. 

 Many costly institutions, such as houses of refuge, protectories 

 and juvenile reformatories, are maintained by the state mainly 

 in the hope that characters tending to criminality may be 

 diverted to true citizenship. But the general system of deal- 

 ing with actual offenders against the law has been framed with 

 no such definite purpose. It has gradually grown up by the 

 assumption on the part of organized society of the right of 

 retaliation, modified more and more by a superficial conception 

 of distributive justice. Our penal law now undertakes to 

 assign to each offense a punishment proportioned to its de- 



254 



