Chapter 19

In the course of an early morning constitutional I visited Charlestown. Among the changes, too numerous to attempt to indicate, which mark the lapse of a century in that quarter, I particularly noted the total disappearance of the old state prison.

“That went before my day, but I remember hearing about it,” said Dr. Leete, when I alluded to the fact at the breakfast table. “We have no jails nowadays. All cases of atavism are treated in the hospitals.”

“Of atavism!” I exclaimed, staring.

“Why, yes,” replied Dr. Leete. “The idea of dealing punitively with those unfortunates was given up at least fifty years ago, and I think more.”

“I don’t quite understand you,” I said. “Atavism in my day was a word applied to the cases of persons in whom some trait of a remote ancestor recurred in a noticeable manner. Am I to understand that crime is nowadays looked upon as the recurrence of an ancestral trait?”

“I beg your pardon,” said Dr. Leete with a smile half humorous, half deprecating, “but since you have so explicitly asked the question, I am forced to say that the fact is precisely that.”

After what I had already learned of the moral contrasts between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, it was doubtless absurd in me to begin to develop sensitiveness on the subject, and probably if Dr. Leete had not spoken with that apologetic air and Mrs. Leete and Edith shown a corresponding embarrassment, I should not have flushed, as I was conscious I did.

“I was not in much danger of being vain of my generation before,” I said; “but, really--”

“This is your generation, Mr. West,” interposed Edith. “It is the one in which you are living, you know, and it is only because we are alive now that we call it ours.”

“Thank you. I will try to think of it so,” I said, and as my eyes met hers their expression quite cured my senseless sensitiveness. “After all,” I said, with a laugh, “I was brought up a Calvinist, and ought not to be startled to hear crime spoken of as an ancestral trait.”

“In point of fact,” said Dr. Leete, “our use of the word is no reflection at all on your generation, if, begging Edith’s pardon, we may call it yours, so far as seeming to imply that we think ourselves, apart from our circumstances, better than you were. In your day fully nineteen twentieths of the crime, using the word broadly to include all sorts of misdemeanors, resulted from the inequality in the possessions of individuals; want tempted the poor, lust of greater gains, or the desire to preserve former gains, tempted the well-to-do. Directly or indirectly, the desire for money, which then meant every good thing, was the motive of all this crime, the taproot of a vast poison growth, which the machinery of law, courts, and police could barely prevent from choking your civilization outright. When we made the nation the sole trustee of the wealth of the people, and guaranteed to all abundant maintenance, on the one hand abolishing want, and on the other checking the accumulation of riches, we cut this root, and the poison tree that overshadowed your society withered, like Jonah’s gourd, in a day. As for the comparatively small class of violent crimes against persons, unconnected with any idea of gain, they were almost wholly confined, even in your day, to the ignorant and bestial; and in these days, when education and good manners are not the monopoly of a few, but universal, such atrocities are scarcely ever heard of. You now see why the word ‘atavism’ is used for crime. It is because nearly all forms of crime known to you are motiveless now, and when they appear can only be explained as the outcropping of ancestral traits. You used to call persons who stole, evidently without any rational motive, kleptomaniacs, and when the case was clear deemed it absurd to punish them as thieves. Your attitude toward the genuine kleptomaniac is precisely ours toward the victim of atavism, an attitude of compassion and firm but gentle restraint.”

“Your courts must have an easy time of it,” I observed. “With no private property to speak of, no disputes between citizens over business relations, no real estate to divide or debts to collect, there must be absolutely no civil business at all for them; and with no offenses against property, and mighty few of any sort to provide criminal cases, I should think you might almost do without judges and lawyers altogether.”

“We do without the lawyers, certainly,” was Dr. Leete’s reply. “It would not seem reasonable to us, in a case where the only interest of the nation is to find out the truth, that persons should take part in the proceedings who had an acknowledged motive to color it.”

“But who defends the accused?”

“If he is a criminal he needs no defense, for he pleads guilty in most instances,” replied Dr. Leete. “The plea of the accused is not a mere formality with us, as with you. It is usually the end of the case.”

“You don’t mean that the man who pleads not guilty is thereupon discharged?”

“No, I do not mean that. He is not accused on light grounds, and if he denies his guilt, must still be tried. But trials are few, for in most cases the guilty man pleads guilty. When he makes a false plea and is clearly proved guilty, his penalty is doubled. Falsehood is, however, so despised among us that few offenders would lie to save themselves.”

“That is the most astounding thing you have yet told me,” I exclaimed. “If lying has gone out of fashion, this is indeed the ‘new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, ‘ which the prophet foretold.”

“Such is, in fact, the belief of some persons nowadays,” was the doctor’s answer. “They hold that we have entered upon the millennium, and the theory from their point of view does not lack plausibility. But as to your astonishment at finding that the world has outgrown lying, there is really no ground for it. Falsehood, even in your day, was not common between gentlemen and ladies, social equals. The lie of fear was the refuge of cowardice, and the lie of fraud the device of the cheat. The inequalities of men and the lust of acquisition offered a constant premium on lying at that time. Yet even then, the man who neither feared another nor desired to defraud him scorned falsehood. Because we are now all social equals, and no man either has anything to fear from another or can gain anything by deceiving him, the contempt of falsehood is so universal that it is rarely, as I told you, that even a criminal in other respects will be found willing to lie. When, however, a plea of not guilty is returned, the judge appoints two colleagues to state the opposite sides of the case. How far these men are from being like your hired advocates and prosecutors, determined to acquit or convict, may appear from the fact that unless both agree that the verdict found is just, the case is tried over, while anything like bias in the tone of either of the judges stating the case would be a shocking scandal.”

“Do I understand,” I said, “that it is a judge who states each side of the case as well as a judge who hears it?”

“Certainly. The judges take turns in serving on the bench and at the bar, and are expected to maintain the judicial temper equally whether in stating or deciding a case. The system is indeed in effect that of trial by three judges occupying different points of view as to the case. When they agree upon a verdict, we believe it to be as near to absolute truth as men well can come.”

“You have given up the jury system, then?”