it is almost hopeless to bring any system or order out of the chaos that prevails in the discussion of the insane, the defective, the moron, and the feeble-minded. the world has so long believed that man is a specially created animal and that he does wrong from free choice, that much more time and investigation are necessary before sane and scientific theories can be formulated on this subject.
it has been a great many years since any semi-intelligent man believed that all sorts of physical abnormalities were due to one cause and could be cured by one method, and yet the prevailing opinion now, even among the fairly educated, is that all sorts of abnormal conduct are due to one cause, perversity and wickedness, and should be treated with only one prescription, punishment. scientific men indeed have long known that there were causes for the abnormality of conduct and that there were various more or less satisfactory remedies for many cases. still the time that scientists have worked on the problem is short and the data imperfect, and many years of patient study will be needed before there can be worked out the broad theories of responsibility for and treatment of crime which will replace the long accepted doctrines of original sin, and the expulsion of devils from the wicked by cruelty and punishment.
by far the largest part of the population of prisons is made up of the insane, feeble-minded, morons, defectives or victims of diseases that seriously influence conduct. this is especially shown by the increased percentage of the clearly defective that are repeaters, over those in prison for their first offense. there is no lack of statistics as to the various groups of defectives, but these figures cannot be reconciled. no two authorities agree as to percentages; the classifications are more or less uncertain; the dividing lines between the different groups are vague, one class easily fading into another. the investigations have largely been made by those not trained for the work, and above all the conclusions as to treatment are at variance, doubtful and necessarily not yet satisfactory. that the clearly insane and the plainly feeble-minded should not be punished would doubtless be admitted by all who speak in public or write for others to read. many persons speaking in private, acting on juries and connected with the machinery of "justice" say that these should be punished like the rest. still for a starting point, it may be assumed that most men would agree that these classes should be restrained rather than punished.
the chief difficulty is that between the most violently insane and the least emotional man are infinite numbers of gradations blending so closely that no one can mathematically or scientifically classify all the various individual units. while there are cases of insanity that can be clearly traced to injury or disease, the degree of sanity in most cases is still impossible to determine. most insane people are sane on some things, generally on most things and are sane a part or most of the time. the periods of sanity and insanity can be distinguished only by conduct. how far any specific insanity may impair the brain and affect the inhibitions, is impossible to foretell.
when it comes to the defective, the problem is still more difficult. no two persons have the same degree of intelligence. some are clearly lacking in mentality. others are manifestly intelligent. the great mass range all along between these extremes. various arbitrary rules have been laid down to aid in classifying different grades of defectives. generally the feeble-minded can be sorted out. the defectives are supposed, if young, to be two years or more below the normal scholar in development; if older, three or more below. their standing is fixed by asking certain test questions. furthermore, a list of questions has been commonly used for an "intelligence test." these queries have nothing to do with the school work of the child, but are supposed to reveal only his native intelligence.
no doubt in a broad way such tests throw considerable light on the mentality of those who submit to the examination. ordinary experience, however, shows that they cannot be fully relied on. some children develop very slowly, others very rapidly. some are much quicker, others slower in their perceptions and responses. no two children or grown-ups have the same turn of mind. one may be very bright in business affairs and very dull in books. one may be clever in arithmetic and hopeless in grammar. one may have marked mechanical ability and no taste for school. these tests are only valuable if given by well qualified examiners, and the method is so new that few have had the chance to thoroughly prepare for the work. for the most part the tests are given by people who are wholly unfit for so important a task.
quite aside from all this it is not certain that intelligent people are necessarily safer to the community than stupid ones. there is always a tendency for the stupid to stick to the beaten path. intelligence generally means individuality and divergence. on the other hand, the stupid and subnormal are moved much more directly by instincts and emotions. their lack of imagination, poor perceptions and want of reasoning or comparing power, make their self-control weak. in sudden stress or an unusual situation, they are easily swept away and respond directly to instinct and feeling. in short the urge of the primitive through the long history of the race cannot be modified sufficiently by the new structure that civilization has built around more intelligent people.
the various distinctions between the feeble-minded and the normal must not be taken with too much confidence. as the motives that govern man are understood, it is easy to see that intelligence is a strong factor in regulating behavior. when it is seen also that at least the larger part of the inmates of prisons are subnormal and at the same time without property or education, it is evident that all these handicaps are dominating causes of conduct. this position is made still more certain by the further evidence that nearly all of the repeaters in prison are of this type.
most states already make some allowances in their criminal codes for the defective and the insane. this is really an acknowledgment that the activity of the human machine is governed by its make and environment. the history of the treatment of the insane serves to show the uncertainty of all man's theories as to punishment and responsibility. doubtless at a very early age in the history of man it was discovered that there were people who acted so abnormally that they could not be classified with the great mass. such persons were supposed to be possessed of devils or demons, and various incantations and practices were used to drive the devils out. failing in this they were put in prison, loaded with chains or put to death because of their danger to the community.
in other communities, however, insane persons were thought to be possessed of special gifts. god had come nearer to them than to common mortals, and they were seers or prophets endowed with a portion of the divine power.
either view of the problem is explainable by the lack of scientific or exact knowledge that marks early societies. still these societies relied on punishments just as much as our present law-makers and enforcers, possibly more, because presumably less enlightened. further investigation and experiences with the insane have convinced even the most casual observer that they function somewhat differently from other people; there is not the same certainty between stimulus and response. what they will do and how they will act under given conditions cannot be foretold with anything approaching the exactness that is possible with the normal.
the origin of the insanity in many cases is clearly traceable: sometimes to lesions; sometimes to illness; sometimes to the mode of life; perhaps more is due to heredity than to any other cause. at any rate in theory the civilized world has long since ceased to hold the insane criminally responsible for their acts. this applies only to the clearly insane. the border-line is impossible to find, and many cases are so difficult to classify that there is often a doubt as to where the given patient belongs. in times when the crowd is mad with the mob psychology of hatred, people are impatient of insanity and do not care whether the accused was sane or not at the time of the commission of the act. many insane are put to death or sentenced to long terms of punishments. jails and other penal institutions are constantly sorting their inmates and finding many who were clearly insane at the time their sentences began.
society is beginning to find out that even where there is no marked insanity, many are so near idiocy that they cannot fairly be held responsible for their acts. the line here is just as vague and uncertain as with the insane. thus far, society has not provided adequate protection for the public against this class; neither has it properly cared for these unfortunates. it has simply excused their conduct, except in cases where some act is so shocking that it arouses special hatred, and then it freely declares that it makes no difference whether the accused is a defective or not; he is of no value to the world and should die. many of this class are put to death. i am inclined to think that most of those executed are either insane or serious defectives; and those who say that such people are of no value are probably right. it is perhaps equally true that few if any are of value, for when value is considered we are met with the question: "value to whom, or for what?" all you can say of any one is that he wishes to live, and has the same inherent instincts and emotions toward life as are common to all other men.
even the legal tests as to insanity and feeble-mindedness are neither logical nor humane. often the definition is given by courts that if one is able to distinguish between right and wrong, he is sane within the meaning of the law. this definition of insanity is utterly unscientific. if the insane or the defective above an idiot is questioned specifically whether certain distinct things are right or wrong, he can generally give the conventional classification. often he can tell much better than the intelligent man, for he has been arbitrarily taught the things that are right and wrong and has not the originality or ability to inquire whether the classification is right or how far circumstances and conditions determine right and wrong.
conduct is ruled by emotion, and actions depend not upon whether one has learned to classify certain conduct as right or wrong, but whether from education, life or otherwise, the thought of a certain act produces a quick and involuntary reaction against doing it. no one believes or feels that it is always really wrong to violate some statutes, and most men indulge in many practices that are wrong and repulsive but not forbidden by the criminal code.
furthermore, the insane and subnormal are influenced by punishment and fear. even the animal responds to both. it is possible that in many instances those who are insane and subnormal are influenced by fear more than the intelligent and normal. the most that can be said is that they have not the same power of resistance that is given stronger men. this means only that they have not stored up the experiences of life so well; that their nervous system has not so well conveyed impressions, or that their power of comparison is less; this, in turn, means that it will take greater stress or harder environment to overcome the inhibitions of the sane than the insane. the treatment of the insane and the defective is an acknowledgment that all conduct comes from a direct response of the machine to certain stimuli and the machine can act only in a way consistent with its mechanism.
in other cases, the courts often recognize the strength of hereditary defects in nullifying environment with its strict ideas of right and wrong. the kleptomaniac is generally recognized as being a well-defined class of the insane. most of the shop-lifters are women. this is especially a female crime. it is useless to explain why. it is not a daring crime; it is secretive in its nature; it requires more stealth than courage; it especially appeals to women on account of their taste for the finery exhibited at stores. the kleptomaniac, however, is generally a rich or influential woman. she steals something she does not need, and she is therefore held to be a kleptomaniac and not responsible.
the poor woman who steals something she actually needs is not a kleptomaniac. i have no doubt that the rich woman who could not resist shop-lifting is a kleptomaniac. i have just as little doubt that the poor woman, with an imperfect make, found her environment such that she was forced to act as she did. if a rich woman is irresponsible and cannot resist when she steals something she does not need, i can see no reason why a poor woman is not likewise irresponsible when she takes something that she needs or must have. the kleptomaniac finds herself in a position where her emotions and her feelings are too strong for her judgment and inhibitions. everyone who acts must act from similar causes or inducements. there is no special providence in the realm of mind. there is no room for chance in any natural phenomenon. possibly the public will understand sometime, and law-makers and law-enforcers will place crime and punishment on a scientific basis.
