organizations and cults are forever coining new expressions that sound "pat" and for this reason seem true. as a rule, these terms and phrases are put in the shape of general statements that may or may not mean something; but their "pat" sound is used to justify all sorts of excesses and violations of individual rights. the term "social control" is met everywhere now. it may imply much or little, according to the construction of the users. it is meant at least to imply that somewhere is lodged a power to bring under control or supervision the refractory or evil elements of society for the well being of the whole. as a rule, under this phrase anything is justified which seems in some way fit for the community as a whole. the fact that the restraint interferes with personal liberty seems to have no bearing on the matter. social control necessarily means that the majority of the members of a social unit shall limit the freedom of action of the individual to conform to its view. of course, the majority has the right because it has the power. in the discussion of political or philosophical questions, "right" means little more or less than "power." a right must be based upon some custom or habit with some power to enforce it, or it cannot be claimed. it can never be enjoyed without the power to obtain it.
the relation of society to the individual has been one long conflict. this is necessarily true because every human organism has instincts, feelings and desires and is naturally impatient at any limitations placed upon it unless self-imposed. on the other hand, organized society functions to preserve itself, and if the activities of the individual are hostile to this preservation the individual must give way. theorists of various schools are forever propounding social ideas, with the positive assurance that, if followed, they would work automatically and heal all social ills. but it must be evident that neither from history nor philosophy can any such theory be proved. between the extreme anarchistic view that each person should be free of control by law, and the extreme socialistic view of an extension of state organization until all property and all industrial activity shall be administered by the state and collectively owned, social life in its relation to the individual is always shifting. no one can find the proper line, and if there were a line it would forever change. on the one hand, the power of the strongest element in social organization is always seeking to enlarge the province of the state. on the other hand, the individual unit following the natural instincts for its development is reaching out for more freedom and life. when the theorists in each camp manage to push so hard that both can no longer be maintained, the old organization of society breaks up into new units, immediately to re-form in some new way.
this struggle of contending forces is a prolific and unavoidable source of crime. when organized society goes too far, the individual units rebel and clash with law; when the units swing too far away from the social organization and defy the power of the state, almost automatically some sort of a new organization becomes the state. whether this new one discards all old forms and laws and acts without the written law, is of no concern. it at least acts and sets limits to the individual life. if it were possible for all legislative bodies to meet and repeal all laws, the state would still remain; the people would live and automatically form themselves into a certain order and protect that order either by written law or vigilance committees. at least the people would act together.
the majority generally has some religious creed, and to it this is all important. this creed is made up of observances, such as holy days, the support of the prevailing religion, the condemnation of witchcraft and magic, and the like. these and other doctrines often have been enforced upon those who have no faith in the regulations. the enforcement of such laws in the past has been by the most drastic penalties and has brought extreme suffering upon the world. no religious organization has ever seemed willing to confine its activities to propaganda, teaching and moral suasion; those methods are too slow, and the evils and consequences of disbelief are too great. laws of this drastic character are still part of the penal codes of various states and nations, and well-organized bodies are always strenuously seeking to extend the application of such laws and re-enact at least a portion of the religious code that has been outgrown.
individuals have likewise found, or at least believed, that certain personal habits were best for them, for instance, abstaining from alcohol and tobacco in all forms. not content with propaganda, they have sought to force their views upon others, many of whom deeply resent their interference.
it is not enough that certain things shall be best for the health and physical welfare of a community. this does not justify the wise law-giver in making them a part of the penal code. if so, the code would be very long. no doubt coffee and tea, and perhaps meat, are injurious to health. most likely the strength of the community would be conserved if regular sleeping hours were kept and if great modifications or changes were made in dress. but this does not justify criminal statutes. the code must take notice of something more than the general welfare. unless the end sought to be attained is very direct and plain and the evil great so that a large majority believes in the law, it should be left to education and to other voluntary social forces.
a large part of the community has always attributed many criminal acts to intoxicating drinks. i am convinced that with such crimes as murder, burglary, robbery, forgery and the like, alcohol has had little to do. petty things, like disorderly conduct, are often caused by intoxicating liquor, and these land a great many temporarily in jail, but these acts are really not criminal. men have been temporarily locked up for over-drinking. if over-eating had been treated the same as over-drinking, the jails would often be filled with gluttons. as to health, probably the glutton takes the greater chance. a very large percentage of deaths would have been materially delayed except for excessive eating. the statements ascribing crime to intoxicating drinks have generally been made by those who are obsessed with a hatred of alcohol. as a rule if one lands in prison and has not been a total abstainer, his downfall is charged to rum. statistics have been gathered in prison often by chaplains who, in the main, are prohibitionists and interested in sustaining an opinion. the facts are mainly furnished by inmates of prisons, a poor source from which to gather facts and draw deductions, especially as to the cause of crime. prisoners are interested in only one thing, and that is getting out. they understand perfectly well what kind of statistics the chaplain wants and these are given. it is the nature and part of the protective instinct of everyone to find some excuse for his acts. alcohol has always furnished this excuse. it is a good alibi; it is readily believed, always awakens sympathy and at once turns the wrath of a provincial community from the inmate of the prison to the saloon-keeper.
even if prisoners were unlike others and wished to tell the truth about themselves, they have not the art and understanding to give the causes of their plight. no man, however intelligent, can do this, least of all one of inferior brain power, little education and not trained in dealing with facts. the prison inmate, like everyone else, knows only that he followed what seemed to him the line of least resistance, and that every step in his course was preceded by another and that there was a reason for what he did. most likely he does not know the reason. in the hours of his despair he goes over his life in every detail, at every crossroad, and at all the forks where paths branch, always wishing he had gone the other way.
while this is true, he could know neither the dangers that lurked along other roads, nor the fact that he had no choice about the way he went. all he knows is that he stumbled along a certain path which led to disaster. all the paths of life lead to tragedy; it is only a question as to how and when. with some, the evil day is longer delayed and the disaster seems not so hard to bear.
in a sense, all the classifications as to the cause of crime are misleading and worthless. your existence is the result of infinite chances and causes appalling in their number. out of a thousand eggs, one is fertilized by perhaps one of a billion sperms, and from this you have been given life. each of your parents and grandparents and so on, back for two hundred thousand years of human ancestors, and back to infinity before man was born, was the result of the same seemingly blind and almost impossible hazard. the infinitely microscopic chance that each of us had for life cannot be approximated. all the drops of water in the ocean, or all the grains of sand upon the shore, or all the leaves on all the trees, if converted into numbers and used as a denominator, with one for a numerator, could hardly tell the fraction of a chance that gave us life.
the causes of human action are infinite, and no cause stands isolated from the rest. in the first place we cannot tell the meaning of the word "cause" when applied to a problem of this sort. in law the ordinary rule for a "proximate cause" is "an event or happening in the direct line of causation, not too remote, that has led to the result, and without which the result could not have happened." but this means nothing. infinite are the causes which have led to every act, and without each one of the infinite causes the act could not have resulted. if it be something that affected a life, and had it not happened then the life would have drifted somewhere else. in the end it would have reached the same harbor of nirvana. but the life would not have been the same. a drop of water falls on the rocky mountains, it trickles along, going around through pebbles and grains of sand; it joins with others, meets trees and roots, winds and twists perhaps for hundreds, even thousands of miles before one can tell by what channel it will reach the sea. infinite accidents determine even which sea it shall finally reach. the most radical advocates of social control are never at a loss to lay their fingers on causes or to know what would have happened if something else had not happened; they never hesitate to forbid seemingly innocent acts because they are certain that evil will follow. they are contemptuous of one who wants to preserve the semblance and spirit of freedom.
life has none too much to offer where men are left to control themselves, and to be forbidden to follow your inclinations and desires because sometimes they may result disastrously, is to give up what seems to be a substance for what is most likely a shadow.
all we can tell about the man whom we are pleased to call a criminal, is that he had a poor equipment and met certain influences, motives and conditions, called environment, on his journey. we know that at a given time the journey has reached a certain point; it has met disaster or success, or most likely indifference. at a certain point he has reached a prison or is waiting for the hangman to tie a noose around his neck. is heredity responsible? we know of many who apparently started out with an equipment no better. these may be business men and congressmen and deacons in the church. while we do not know and cannot know the trend and relative strength of the instincts in the various machines or the emotions that these and the whole equipment produced, apparently an equipment as poor as that of the criminal has met success, or at least kept its possessor out of jail. was it then his environment? we have known men placed in the same environment, perhaps a brother, conquering difficulties and bringing success from what seemed to promise certain defeat. why did one fail where the other conquered? was it the "will" that caused one to be the "captain of his soul"? what then is the "will" and who gave the weak will to one and the strong will to another? and, if each was born with a certain "will" or the capacity to make a certain "will", who then is responsible for the result? or, does the word "will" mean anything, as usually applied?
all we can tell is that a certain equipment met a certain environment, and the result was early disaster. a change of even the slightest factor of environment might have saved the victim from hanging, so that he could die a respectable and peaceful death from tuberculosis or cancer.
after all, the inevitable tragedy that in some form marks the end is not so important as the sensations and experiences that one meets on the road. life is hopeless and colorless indeed if these experiences are chosen for the wayfarer and the sensations are enforced or denied, as the case may be. nothing recompenses the individual for the denial of his chance to follow his own path.
