The old method of dealing with criminals was based entirely upon a doctrine of vengeance. The criminal was regarded as being in every way a normal man, a man who deliberately chose to be a criminal. The possibility of a criminal’s moral sense being defective, of his not being able to bring his actions under the control of his will, or of some other sad handicap existing, was never contemplated. His crime was looked upon as a desperate act, for the committal of which he was absolutely without any excuse. The consequence was that an elaborate system of torture was devised in order to deal with him. Readers who are familiar with such books as Marcus Clark’s “For the term of his natural life,” and Charles Reade’s “It is never too late to mend,” will require no further description of the horrors of “the vengeance system” which was supposed to be the only rational method of dealing with criminals in the days of the convict settlements.

Since then, popular vengeance has considerably relaxed and the devising of painful forms of punishment has become almost a lost art. The new-born science, with its first powers of articulation, loudly repeat the words of Revelation, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” A system of vengeance instituted by man against man is impossible. As has been stated in a previous chapter, the new penology repudiates all such systems. The amount of pain which an individual is to be called upon to suffer may well be left to the higher tribunal. The obvious duty of man to his fellow-man who is depraved, is to endeavour to recover him. There is no satisfaction in punishing him, but there is every satisfaction in reforming him.

The new penology covers the investigation and study of every circumstance surrounding the criminal as such. No circumstance is so trifling as to be passed by, every detail is carefully studied with the object of discovering what the criminal is and how he came to be such, what are his possibilities, and by what methods those possibilities may be reached.

Maconochie ventured upon the bold assumption that the criminal was a human being, and this assumption proved to be justified. In 1840 he was sent to Norfolk Island to take charge of 1400 double-convicted felons there. He describes them in these words: “For the merest trifle they were flogged, ironed or confined in gaol for days on bread and water. The offences most severely punished were chiefly conventional; those against morals being little regarded, compared with those against unreasonable discipline. Thus the horrid vices with acts of brutal violence, or of dexterity in theft and robbery, were detailed to me by the officers with little direct censure, and rather as anecdotes calculated to astonish and amuse a new-comer. While the possession of a pipe, a newspaper, a little tea, etc., or the omission of some mark of respect, a saucy look or word, or even an imputation of sullenness, were deemed unpardonable offences. They were fed more like hogs than like men; neither knives, forks, nor hardly any other conveniences were allowed at tables. They tore their food with their fingers and teeth, and drank out of water buckets. The men’s countenances reflected faithfully this description of treatment. A more demoniacal looking assemblage could not be imagined; and nearly the most formidable sight I ever beheld was the sea of faces upturned to me when I first addressed them. Yet three years after, I had the satisfaction of hearing Sir George Gipps ask me what I had done to make the men look so well? he had seldom seen a better looking set.”

Maconochie had invented the mark system (the principle of the indeterminate system) and made the prisoners’ liberation depend upon their conduct and character and not upon the original offence. Maconochie’s experience led him to write in after years to a friend, “if you would try a social-moral one (prison system) you would soon get important results. If our punishments were first of all made reformatory, and generally successful in this object the prejudices of society against the early criminal would abate.” Inspired with this hope of reforming the criminal and restoring him to society as a useful member, philanthropists began the exhaustive study of the criminal. In prisons where the value of this science is recognized the criminal upon his entry is subject to a most thorough examination, every item of his family history is carefully enquired into. Information concerning the occupation, education, health and character of all who are nearly related to him is obtained, as also the moral and economic conditions of his home life, and the character of his associates. He himself is studied for the existence or traces of disease; for abnormalities, arrested or exaggerated physical and mental development. The strength of his various muscles, the vitality of his organs, his mental and nervous capacity, and his moral susceptibility are all estimated. His powers of self-control are determined. His disposition is carefully studied. His opportunities in life, his educational advantages, his early career, the nature of the crime, the immediate influencing circumstances, as provocation, hunger, cold, atmospheric disturbances are all noted.

Such is a brief outline of the examination, the object of which is to discover as far as possible the real cause which led to the crime, what, if any, were the social, physical, psychical and provocative elements contributing to the cause; what their value; and what are the most promising lines upon which the criminal’s reform may be directed. He is by no means regarded as a passive product of forces over which he has no control, nor his crime as the consequence of himself. It is essential to the success of all reformatory discipline that moral responsibility must be recognised and observed. In fact it may be said, that reformation is complete when moral responsibility, insisted upon by the discipline, becomes at last acknowledged by the man.

Perhaps it may be thought that it is not possible to conduct such a study with anything like accurate results, and that the greater part of it would be mere guess work, as e.g. the determining the capacity of a man’s nervous system or his degree of moral susceptibility. This is quite a mistake. There is nothing whatever of a speculative quality in the results advanced by criminologists. Their methods are exact and compare equally with those for the investigation of other phenomena.

It is not claimed that the absolute or the relative value of the data collected is as yet determined, nor yet that any one investigation has been exhausted; but this much can be claimed, that the results obtained are of high practical worth and justify the assurance that the solution of the problem concerning the criminal will soon be reached.