Those who believe in the beneficence of force have never yet agreed upon the crimes that should be forbidden, the method and extent of punishment, the purpose of punishment, nor even its result. They simply agree that without force and violence social life cannot be maintained.

The last refuge of the apologist is that punishment is inflicted to prevent crime. No one can speak from experience as to whether punishment prevents what is called crime or not, for the experiment of non-resistance has never yet been fairly or fully tried. To justify killing or penning a human being upon the theory that this prevents crime should call for the strictest proof on the part of those who advocate this course.

If the punishment of so-called crimes tended in any way to prevent violent acts, this tendency would be manifest in some conclusive way. Whether brotherhood, love, and non-resistance would lessen crime may be a matter of debate, but that punishment does not lessen it seems to be as well established as any fact that cannot be absolutely proved.

Reason and judgment as well as an almost endless array of facts have proven that crime is not without its cause. In showing its cause, its cure has been made plain. If the minds and energies of men were directed toward curing crime instead of brutally assaulting the victims of society, some progress might be made.

Natural laws rule the world. It is a mistake to believe that the conduct of man is outside of natural law. The laws of being that move all the sentient world rule him. His first impulse is to preserve his life, and his next to preserve the species. Nature planted these instincts so deeply in his being that no civilization can root them up. To destroy these instincts would be to destroy the human race. The first instinct of man is to preserve his life. To do this he must obtain the food, shelter and raiment that enable him to live.

But even if some men deserve punishment, who is to judge? The old injunction still comes back and ever will return when man arraigns his fellow, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” To find a judge without sin in the ordinary meaning of the world is necessarily out of the question. They must of course pretend to be holier than the rest, and organized society helps out the farce and fraud.

But admitting the right to punish, where is there a man with the wisdom to inflict punishment? By what magical scales can he weigh the guilt of a human being, and by what standard can he determine the judgment that is proportionate to his guilt? It must be evident that the wit of man never did invent or can invent a measure that shall determine the just amount of punishment for any human act.

If there is any justice in human punishment it must be based upon the theory of intrinsic evil in the victim. Punishment cannot be justified because of the violation of human law. To violate law is often the highest, most sacred duty that can devolve upon the citizen, and even were it not, the condition of the heart is the test of the evil or good purpose, not the good or evil of the act. The world worships and venerates many of its dead because they violated human law.

Many of the crimes fixed by law are purely arbitrary. To commit them or to refrain does not necessarily imply innocence or guilt. Of such a character, for instance, are revenue laws, the observance of holy days and the like. A large number of forbidden acts that are generally supposed to imply moral guilt are also purely arbitrary.

The rulers make penal codes for the regulation and control of the earth and all the property thereon—the earth which was made long ages before they were evolved, and will still remain ages after they are dust. Not only do they make these rules to control the earth for their brief, haughty lives, but they provide that it may pass from hand to hand forever.