BLACKMAR: penology in KANSAS. 157 



entirely new light has been thrown upon the subject of penology. A 

 careful inquiry has been made into the question of what men are con- 

 fined for, how they are to be managed while under confinement, and 

 what is to be done with them after confinement. Although the funda- 

 mental principles of penology are quite well established concerning 

 the object and nature of discipline, yet there are many questions of 

 detail respecting the methods to be pursued in carrying out these 

 principles of punitive and reformatory measures. In other words, the 

 practical application of theory, in spite of all the progress that has 

 been made, leaves serious difficulties to be met and mastered. It is 

 generally considered by all right-thinking persons versed in prison 

 science that the following objects of confinement are essential in every 

 case : First, the protection of society ; second, punishment of the 

 offender ; third, prevention of crime ; and fourth, reform of criminals. 

 Doubtless no theory of prison discipline may be considered complete 

 which lacks any one of these four great fundamental principles. Yet 

 it is true that we shall find, even at this day, one, two, and even three 

 of these four fundamental principles violated in the practice of the 

 imprisonment of our fellow beings. The practice of hurrying one, 

 who does commit a crime, away from the sight and contact of his fel- 

 low beings, is indicative of a universal sentiment in modern society. 

 Society demands at least this protection, and its request and privilege 

 should never be denied in this respect. But the old idea of punish- 

 ment for revenge has nearly died out of modern penalties of the law. 

 There was a time when, coupled with the desire to shut one away from 

 society, doubtless for its own protection, was a desire to take revenge 

 upon the individual who had outraged society. Sometimes a desire 

 for revenge precipitated an immediate punishment regardless of 

 law and order. Sometimes it was studiously and systematically cruel 

 in all its plans for punishment as well as in their execution. But in a 

 large measure this has been eradicated from the spirit of our laws and 

 institutions. We see some evidence of it in our modern process of 

 lynching when anger and revenge seize upon people with such force 

 as to cause them to lynch the lawbreaker in a most cruel manner. So 

 also in respect to individuals who have committed great crimes, when 

 the whole community seem so desirous of revenge that they have 

 thrown their whole support into the prosecution of the offender. But 

 these are exceptional cases. The spirit of punishment in modern 

 times is that which looks calmly on the act of the law-breaker as 

 an injustice to society for which he must pay the penalty. In 

 other words, a man is imprisoned for life or hung, not because society 

 desires to wreak upon him vengeance on account of the crime which 

 he has committed, but because S()ciet\- demands ijrotection, and that 



