Jerome Hall

Punishment and Social Structure

Why are certain methods of punishment adopted or rejected in a given social situation? To what extent is the development of penal methods determined by basic social relations? The answers to these questions are complex, and go well beyond the thesis that institutionalized punishment is simply for the protection of society. While todays punishment of offenders often incorporates aspects of psychology, psychiatry, and sociology, at one time there was a more pronounced difference in criminal punishment based on class and economics.

Comment on Justification and Excuse

Any analysis of justification and excuse encounters two unusually difficult obstacles. First there are ethical issues that have agitated philosophers for centuries. Is one ever justified in killing an innocent person? If the killing saves the lives of two persons? Of many persons? Should one be excused if he kills two or more persons when that is the only way to preserve his life? If one man is afloat on a plank which can support only him, or if two men are reaching for the plank, is it right for one of them to attack or repel the other in order to preserve his own life?

Drunkenness as a criminal offense

Consumption of intoxicating liquor, and effects to control antisocial results are well-nigh universal phenomena. From the laws of the ancient Hebrews and the discourses of Greek philosophers to the Anglo-Saxon dooms and down to the present time, control of the harmful social effects of drunkenness has been a matter of public concern.

Penal Reform in England

The most striking recent development is that, allowing for all changes in conditions there is an increase in the incidence of juvenile crime. The causes of this are held to be smaller families, leading to the spoiling of children, a general lack of discipline, a failure in religious teaching, the decay of the apprenticeship system, the shortcomings of our educational and industrial system in regard to the adolescent and unemployment. Many reformed penal methods are stultified by their unintelligent use, the most striking example of which is probation which has been regarded by many magistrates as a sort of

Committee on Survey of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure

This Committee has therefore sought to define its functions definitely. For while it was recognized that limitation of space required general treatment of the problems surveyed, yet it was sought to chart a specific course which would provide a basis for evaluation of the work done by this Committee and also guide future committees. To that end it was decided to investigate two important teaching problems by questionnaire, and to survey developments in penal legislation, administration, judicial decision, and professional literature during the period October 15, 1937, to October 15, 1938 (the dates being chosen with reference to the annual meetings of the Association). In addition to the definite charting of a program, the Committee thinks that the particular questions investigated are important ones. While far from being entirely satisfied with its results, the Committee believes it has shown the possibilities of surveying important problems in reports which may eventually become of very special significance as annual inventories, particularly after a number of them have been published. As to the subjects undertaken, there was of course no question as to propriety with reference to teaching problems. With reference to the remaining surveys, however, there was some suggestion that other associations were pursuing them. To the extent that that is true, it is being done sporadically and then by scholars on the faculties of member schools. This Association includes by far the vast majority of persons who may fairly be re-

Analysis of Criticism of the Grand Jury

The May issue of the American Bar Association Journal contains an article by Professor Raymond Moley urging the superiority of the information over the indictment. It is noteworthy that the Wickersham report as well as the American Law Institute Proposed Code recommends the retention of both methods of starting criminal prosecutions rather than the complete abolition of the grand jury. Be it stated at the outset, it is not the writers purpose to quarrel particularly with Dr. Moleys conclusions in themselves. Indeed, it is generally conceded that the grand jury is of early origin (what part of our procedure is not?); that it formerly served a more obviously useful and direct purpose than it does now; that, as Dean Pound has pointed out,2 its retention in England was justifiable as a check upon a system of private prosecutions; and that, as Dean Justin Miller has shown,3 a great deal of its work is a duplication of what has already been done before the examining magistrate. Granted all of this; granted the validity, in general, of the conclusions that have been reached by Dr. Moley, it is of the utmost importance, nevertheless, to examine the basis upon which the recommendations are super-imposed. Modifications in the procedure of criminal cases should not be inspired by passionate reactions from crime waves. Neither should they be dictated by business men or any other lay group. Repressive measures instituted to make convictions easy may be purchased at an excessive price. This is axiomatic. The administration of the criminal law is most intimately bound up with personnel, with deep psychological, economic, and political forces. It is failure to bear these basic facts in mind that causes competent academicians to become exponents of repressive measures and propagandists of narrowly conceived reform programs. But there is even a more fundamental consideration which arises