Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 8.djvu/433

 NEW BOOKS. 419 that the operation of this retributive method is not very satisfactory. As M. Saleilles very truly points out, offenders subjected to retributive treatment are not deterred by it from repeating the offence. It does not cure them. On the contrary, it hardens them and makes them more dangerous to society than they were before. Further, there is no proof whatever that the retributive principle checks crime. It is asserted that it does. But no facts whatever are brought forward in proof of this assertion. The assertion is a mere hypothesis resting upon no solid foundation. It is also asserted that retributive punishment ensures respect for the law. But it is impossible to prove that it does so. It is a mere assumption. Hence the discredit into which the principle of retributive justice has fallen among almost all those who have watched it in actual operation. Retributive justice is a purely mechanical and mathematical process : it secures no reparation for the past and it ac- complishes no result in the future. According to M. Saleilles the nature of punishment must be determined by its end. It must be adapted to the character and circumstances of the individual. It is only in this way that punishment can be made effective. Its object must be to prevent the individual, and through him the community as a whole, from repeating the offence. It is only by the individualisation of punishment that this end can be attained. But how is punishment to be individualised ? According to M. Saleilles it can be individualised partly by legislative, partly by judicial, and partly by administrative methods. The object of individualisation is to adapt the punishment to the offender and not merely to the nature of the offence. The adaptation of punishment to the character of the offender must be on lines which will not bring this principle into collision with the idea of justice current in the community. In fact the practical application of an individualised system of punish- ment is the chief difficulty connected with it. The system is sound in theory but it has yet to be shown to what extent it can be applied in practice. I have no doubt that the individualisation of punishment is capable of practical application to a very considerable extent. M. Saleilles proposes several methods and some of them are more or less feasible, but we must wait for the appearance of his second volume on Criminal Politics to see how far his proposals can be carried into the sphere of law and administration. In the meantime, M. Saleilles' present work may be safely recommended as an admirable introduction to the philosophy of criminal law. He has made himself master of all the best that has been thought and said on the subject in recent years, and he has the valuable gift of lucid exposition. L'Ame du Criminel. Par MAURICE DE FLEURY. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1898. Pp. 192. The title of Dr. de Fleury's little volume hardly answers to its contents. More than one half of the book is devoted to an examination of the best means of dealing with the criminal population. Dr. de Fleury divides his work into three sections. The first treats of the brain and free will : the second of determinism and responsibility : the third of the repression and prevention of crime. An examination of the structure and functions of the brain leads the author to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. Human conduct is a product of heredity and environment. The treat- ment of the criminal population must be determined by this fact. The actual criminal code is based upon the idea of free will. But if the fundamental basis of the criminal code is false, it is impossible for the machinery of criminal law to deal effectively with the criminal. Strictly